User talk:Dr.K./Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Please Unblock IP Address and User
Your comment 10/12/08:
Hi. Thanks for the suggestion. You were right. The "Evelyn Wood" citation was just an ad. I removed it as well. Dr.K. (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
My response 10/15/08:
Now that the issue is resolved, would it be possible for you to unblock IP address 72.174.21.21 and user Wal2Wal? It should be noted that their persistence in the issue of ads vs content was due to what appeared an inconsistency in which links were considered ads (the Evelyn Wood link leading to the readfaster.com site), and which were not. We would appreciate if you could reinstate editing status to this IP address and user name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.132.115 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Removal of new additions to Volkswagen Beetle
Would you please be so kind as to contact me before you remove all my new edits? The Volkswagen Beetle page is incomplete and contains falsifications of history. I have researched Volkswagen history for the past five years and have unearthed many new facts. I would be glad to share my knowledge with you and discuss any objections you might have, as long as you respect my right to edit these pages. Information must only be removed if it is incorrect and my information is 100% correct and historically researched. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganz-volkswagen (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm new here. I guess I'll have to read up a little more on proper policy Wcrofct (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Historical engineering branches -Reg
Hi
I added Naval Engineering since it is a main engineering branch with long history.
The following branches listed under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#Main_Branches_of_Engineering are also NOT historically, the main branches of engineering.
Environmental Engineering Computer Engineering Aerospace Engineering
Sincerely Chrysal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.158.130 (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Image added to Corfu
Nice one on the addition of the Aghios Georgios image! I went there in'06 and I have to say it's the most beautiful beach I've ever seen! Judging by your username, you're Greek? cf38talk 18:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks cf38. I really appreciate your kind remarks. Your taste is impeccable. I love that beach too. Scuba diving, kayaking and snorkelling are great also, especially around the peninsula. And yes I am Greek. Nice to meet you. Take care. (Dr.K. (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC))
Jörg Haider
Please do not revert attempts to improve this article. Please do not remove valid fact tags. And prophylactic: Please do not re-add false information. Str1977 (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- How can you call false information a fact supported by an inline citation supported by the Times of London and the German wikipedia. Your tone on my talk page was also uncivil. I would appreciate if in the future you took this to the article talk page. Dr.K. (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is false information because it is not in line with the Austrian reports on the event. It is not uncivil but rather an act of civility to inform you of my action which I of course explained on the article talk page as well, in greater detail. Any further discussion over there. Str1977 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Dr.K., How could I possibly make a wikilink from " Petzner" to "Stefan Petzner"? I tried to find information in regards to links, but it only shwed me the coding, not how to actually do it.
Any response appreciated. Thank you
--Oxygen305 (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Byzantine/Eastern
Heh, looks like you were working from top to bottom of the contribs, and I was working from bottom to top at the same time. Got the work done fast though! Thanks for the help. :) --Elonka 19:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- What a nice surprise Elonka. But it actually gets better. You beat me to the punch. I was so relieved to see you correcting this from the other direction, that I was actually ready to go to your talk page to leave my thanks for helping me in this tedious task. So I will thank you here instead. Nice seeing you. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was very intrigued to see that the anon seemed to have been making changes in the other direction back in September, changing "Eastern Roman" to "Byzantine" in a couple places. I took a look at the Byzantine Empire article to see if I could get an idea of when to use one and when to use the other, but didn't see anything obvious. My own area of expertise is around the time of the later Crusades, when "Byzantine" is the obvious term to use from the sources that I am familiar with. However, I'm honestly not sure if there's a time period when the Roman term is more appropriate. Do you have any idea? --Elonka 22:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thant's interesting. I didn't notice that the anon was actually going in the reverse direction in September. This, I think, is a matter of convention. The Byzantine Empire is also known as the Eastern Roman Empire. So it is a matter of consistency to call it and its article derivatives by one name. In this respect since the main article is called Byzantine Empire it makes sense that its emperors are also called Byzantine. Also the anon made wikilinks which piped the Byzantine Empire through the Eastern Empire term. This is patently unnecessary. The Western Roman Empire officially ended in 476. From that point technically, since there was no Western part, the term Eastern Roman Empire became even more debatable. So before 476 it might be more appropriate to use the term "Eastern Roman". But after the 5-6th century AD the term Byzantine is the more prevalent since Byzantium increasingly evolved into a distinct entity and its attachment to its Roman Empire origins weakened considerably. Dr.K. (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was very intrigued to see that the anon seemed to have been making changes in the other direction back in September, changing "Eastern Roman" to "Byzantine" in a couple places. I took a look at the Byzantine Empire article to see if I could get an idea of when to use one and when to use the other, but didn't see anything obvious. My own area of expertise is around the time of the later Crusades, when "Byzantine" is the obvious term to use from the sources that I am familiar with. However, I'm honestly not sure if there's a time period when the Roman term is more appropriate. Do you have any idea? --Elonka 22:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair use
From reading the fair use guideline, these articles almost always meet that guideline. In cases where they do not, this calls for discussion and consensus building/article improvement, not some mass swathe of deletion which this editor is apparently perusing. Has he responded at all to your repeated inquiries? I didn't see anything on his or your talk page? T L Miles (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response
I don't have a problem with STr1977 correcting me or anybody else, but do not like his tone and dramatic choice of words.I will certainly follow all future comments on haider.--Oxygen305 (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Patagi & Neochori, Evros
Hi, Dr.K. I came across two article that I assume were both translated from the Greek-language Wikipedia (in the initial edit of one article the author indicates as such): Patagi and Neochori, Evros. If you have a moment, could you take a look at them? I came across them when they were listed at WP:SCV. My concern is not that one is a copyright violation of the other (because they were both translated by the same author), but that the Patagi article seems to reuse some facts from the Neochori article that wouldn't necessarily be true about two distinct places. If you could take a look at them, and try to verify some of the facts, I would be very appreciative. We haven't talked in a while - I hope all is well! Again, thanks, Iamunknown 06:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Iamunknown. It's very nice to see you again after such a long time. Everything is great, thanks for asking. How are you? About the two articles, no problem. I'll have a look at both of them and I'll let you know. Take care for now. Dr.K. (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Opinion needed
Do you think you can give your opinion in the discussion? Basically the discussion is about what the population of Thessaloniki really is. El Greco(talk) 23:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try. Thanks for the kind invitation El Greco. Take care. (Dr.K. (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC))
Γειά σου !
Read your post to Yannis. Tsiftis as always. Now that things have cooled down a bit it is even more important to remind him of our appreciation--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Τι κάνεις ρε παιδί; Σ' ευχαριστώ για τα καλά σου λόγια. Έχεις απόλυτο δίκιο. Σε πολλά επίπεδα ο Γιάννης είναι ένα σημαντικό άτομο για το μέρος αυτό. Η παρουσία του εδώ είναι ένα αναντικατάστατο σημείο αναφοράς για πολλούς όπως και για μας. Ελπίζω και εύχομαι τελικά να αποφασίσει να γυρίσει. Πως να το κάνουμε. Το μέρος αυτό είναι πολύ πιο φτωχό εν τη απουσία του. Τουλάχιστον φίλοι σαν κι' εσένα είναι ακόμη εν δράσει και χαίρομαι πολύ να σε βλέπω εδώ, όπως και στον ευρύτερο χώρο της Βικιπαίδειας και ελπίζω για πολύ καιρό ακόμα. Άντε γειά και τα ξαναλέμε. {Dr.K. (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)}
Huh???
Just found out what was happening in Olynpic Airlines. This is bordering to the surreal.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not only surreal but the admins at the 3 revert rule and vandalism sites refused to consider it because technically, since the IPs change and edit war over a long period of time, it is not a violation of the three revert rule and it is not technically vandalism. This has been going on for a month now. Currently I have a complaint at WP:ANI but no reply yet. My complaint from yesterday got one IP blocked because they kept calling me a "censoring machine", a "group of editors" and "company watchdog". These are real dyed in the wool character assasins. Thank you very much Giorgo for your excellent points. Take care for now. (Dr.K. (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
Thanks!
Hay, thank you for taking the time to remove Rfcbeach's copy vio's. Its too bad we must spend so much time dealing with these problems, instead of contributing, but that is the nature of the beast. Thanks again! Nebrot (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- My pleasure Nebrot. Thanks for the kind comments. You are right. It was tedious but at least it gave me the opportunity to practice my TW skills. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
AN/I
Sorry if you interpreted my post as patronizing, or accusing you of biting newbies. That was not my intention. I replied again to the thread in questio. --GraemeL (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for this gracious gesture Graeme. It was not directed at you in any way. If you saw, in my comments at ANI, I used quotes in replying. These quotes were not from any of your comments. They were copied from the comments of BMW just above in the section. That's what I was replying to. I am taken aback by your graceful act, because not too many people possess such grace, and it is my turn to apologise to you again, as I have done on the ANI thread, for not making this more clear. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you are addressing the wrong party but not IP it seems...argh!
Sorry Dr.K.
As an old timer here I know the rules and the punishments both all too well
I never made an edit on Mrs. Kennedy where you said, please look elsewhere, thank you.
Cathie cathytreks (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Just found out that I have an open IP , WHICH MEANS ANYONE could have posted under my IP,
I will secure my computer right now, this will not be an issue again.
thanks for the heads up!
gratefully--cathytreks (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Cathie
- No problem Cathie. I just saw the IP not you. I would never have tagged one of the regulars (WP:DTTR). Nice to meet you and take care. . Dr.K. (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Blue pollution
I'm sorry you feel I'm destroying something useful, but the Wikipedia style manual actually warns against going link-happy like you have. It's terribly distracting and completely unnecessary. Most of your links assume people are unacquainted with very basic information about the world, and even that they lack a basic understanding of English. If they don't understand something they can always look it up themselves, without being prompted by a bunch of links scattered through every possible piece of the article.
If you are the originator of much of this information, you've done a great thing in expanding this article and providing some great specifics. Don't underestimate your readers, though. If they're literate enough to read, they're literate enough to understand most of the terms you're linking to. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for being so patient with me. Sorry for breaking the links. I appreciate your efforts in cleaning up behind my cleanup. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 04:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Comments welcome! Best regards PHG (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with your suggestions to PHG. He could have made things so much easier for himself.--FocalPoint (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Focal. Nice to see you again and thanks for the feedback. I read your comments as well. I agree with you that by raising additional topics he only manages to cloud the real issue which is just the lifting of the symbolic three months remaining. I hope he see this and modifies his comments. Take care for now. (Dr.K. (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)).
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Obama Note
While you are right that we didn't mention in the compromise that it needed to be a special note, we did say that it would be a footnote in the lead that would direct people to an explanation. The way it is now you'd never know that there is an explanatory footnote (and not a normal one). I understand why the footnote is no longer in the lead, but the idea is to inform people. People can read the footnote and then look into the issue more if they want, or just see the sentence and understand all they need to about the issue. The purpose of the note is frustrated if the article is left as it is (as is the compromise we reached after many hours). I don't want to get in an edit war, and I certainly don't want another 10 pages of flaming and fighting, especially as we came to a compromise that has almost no effect on the article. I really hope you will do the right thing and restore your last edit.LedRush (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Normally I would revert myself if I saw your point Led, but I don't think this deserves its own section. Also given that this note/cite is also challenged by other people, not only me, I don't think it is proper to revert now. If you want to discuss this on talk fine. I'll be there. I don't want to edit war, especially with a fellow talkpage participant, so I will not revert you any longer if you chose to revert without discussion. Take care for now and thanks for visiting my talkpage. Dr.K. (logos) 05:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll probably go in tomorrow and see if anyone has said anything. To me, this is also a problem of the integrity of process. We meet and discuss and fight and compromise for days, and finally agree to do something. Whether or not we agreed to have the NB note or not, that's what happened right after the compromise and that's what stayed there. Then, with no explanation, it was removed by someone not a party to the compromise. Why do we even spend all our time making these compromises if we're not going to keep them until a new discussion reaches the consensus that we shouldn't? I just took a 17 day Wiki-break, but the lack of integrity and willingness to work together is so frustrating that I am still depressed by it. Perhaps I need more time away...
- I agree with you on your comments about the integrity of the discussion process. However in a dynamic editing environment sometimes we experience mission creep. The mission was to put the cite into the lead. Then the cite went to the Prez-elect subsection, then someone converted it to a NB note. Someone after that modified it to a regular cite and so on. What can I tell you Led. That's the nature of the beast. However I don't think you should take this to heart. What we are talking about after all is a small footnote. It still exists. That's something. The placement has changed. To tell you the truth I don't really care so much about this detail. So I won't oppose you any further if you choose to debate or revert this. I wouldn't want to upset you further, especially since I don't feel that strongly about it. As far as being polite and constructive it is always my intention to be so, especially when I meet polite and constructive people and obviously you fit the profile in every respect. Thanks again. (Dr.K. (logos) 06:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC))
Happy holidays!
Dr.K., I hope that you have a wonderful holiday season, and a great rest of 2008! It has been a pleasure to work with you! Cheers, Iamunknown 09:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
PHG ArbCom request
I've posted a request for possible additional evidence at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Cool Hand Luke 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Luke for the courtesy. I'll try to see if I can find any other evidence and I'll post it if I do. By the way congratulations on your election to Arbcom and Happy New Year. . (Dr.K. (logos) 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
Ἀγαπητὲ Κύριε Καισάρη:
Εἶναι λάθος ποὺ πρόσθεσα τὴν κατάληξη -λῆς; Ὑπάρχει βέβαια, καὶ νομίζω ὅτι εἶναι τουρκικῆς καταγωγῆς (ὅπως π.χ. ἐδῶ). Δὲν εἶμαι Ἕλληνας καὶ μπορεῖ κάνω λάθος, ἀλλὰ δὲν νομίζω τὸ λάμδα νὰ ἀνήκει στὴ ῥίζα ἀλλὰ στὴ κατάληξη καὶ ἔχω συνανατήσει ὀνόματα σὲ -λῆς (σὲ Θεσσαλικὰ συμφραζόμενα) στὸν Καρκαβίτσα.
Με πολλὲς εὐχές,
Σοφοκλῆς —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzetzes (talk • contribs) 05:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Σοφοκλή σ' ευχαριστώ για το μήνυμά σου και για τις λεπτομέρειες. Δεν είμαι σίγουρος από που προέρχεται η κατάληξη -λης και γι' αυτό το λόγο νόμισα ότι θα ήταν πιό ασφαλές αν βρίσκαμε παραπομπή γι' αυτό. Είναι ενδιαφέρουσα η ερώτηση αν το λάμδα ανήκει στη ρίζα η στη κατάληξη. Αν ανήκε στη ρίζα τότε η κατάληξη -ης είναι χαρακτηριστική πολλών Ελληνικών ονομάτων. Επίσης δεν είμαι σίγουρος για τη συχνότητα της κατάληξης -λης σε Ελληνικά ονόματα. Πάντως συγχαρητήρια για τις γνώσεις σου της Ελληνικής γλωσσας. Και δη σε πολυτονικό. Για κακό η καλό το εγκατέλειψα το πολυτονικό εδώ και πολύ καιρό για λόγους ευκολίας. Χάρηκα πολύ για τη γνωριμία. Με πολλούς χαιρετισμούς και ευχές για ένα ευτυχισμένο χρόνο. . (Dr.K. (logos) 07:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC))
- Ἄλλο ὄνομα ποὺ καταλήγει σὲ -λῆς εἶναι βέβαια ὁ Βενεστινλῆς (ὁ Ῥήγας "Φερραῖος"). Θὰ προσπαθήσω νὰ ἐξακριβώσω ἂν πράγματι ἀνήκει τὸ λάμδα στὴν κατάληξη· μοῦ φαίνεται ἀπίθανο ἕνα ὄνομα νὰ ἔχει ῥίζα σὲ -νλ (Καραμανλ-, Βενεστινλ-) καὶ τὸ τουρκικὸ ἑνικὸ τοῦ Καραμανλῆς εἶναι Karaman, πληθ. Karamanlılar. Πιθανῶς προέρχεται τὸ ἑλληνικὸ ἑνικὸ -λῆς (πληθ. λῆδες) ἀπὸ 'κεῖ. Ὑπάρχουν βιβλία περὶ τῆς ὀνοματολογίας τέλος πάντων καὶ ἴσως νὰ βρῶ ἕνα ἐδῶ στὸ πανεπιστήμιό μου. Ὅ,τι καλό ~Τζέτζης. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzetzes (talk • contribs) 05:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
sorry about that, it was my brother that did that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Busterbaddy1 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's ok Busterbaddy1. Things sometimes happen. Thanks for the nice message. Take care. Dr.K. (logos) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of changes
The undo of my change said "Drastic changes need discussion". That makes sense. How do I start a discussion?
Thank you, UserAccount001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by UserAccount001 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Hi Dr.K! I think I am leaving. Thank you for your support! Cheers PHG (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Merci beaucoup PHG, even if it is for a very sad notice. It is even sadder for me because I predicted the trajectory of this sad affair from the very beginning. The amount of politics involved as well as bureaucratic involvement made this outcome all but inevitable. I lost interest in the proceedings once I realised that they were unfolding precisely the way I had envisioned. I apologise for not participating more vigourously in your defence but once I predicted the outcome of the case my involvement would have made no difference at all. Despite some good work by CHL and others the parameters of this case were inevitably set from the beginning, even before the new members adjudicated the case. Some of the findings of the case acknowledging your contributions and your value to the project are encouraging and indicate a fresh approach by the new arbs. It would be too much to expect however that the runaway train which started before the new arbs took over would come to a safe stop just because there was a changeover of crew. Anyway, as worn and banal as this may sound, I will miss your presence here, your always polite and cheerful demeanour, and your vast, always interesting and enthusiastic contributions. The lights are going out one by one lately here. Yours is one of the brightest. I really hope you reconsider. However I understand your position and your action. Whatever you choose to do now or in the future I wish you the best. À bien·tôt mon ami. . (Dr.K. logos 19:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC))
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.
PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is both revised and extended; the full list of new conditions are available by clicking this link. Furthermore, the original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history has been rescinded. PHG is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.
Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that PHG has complied with the Committee's restrictions over the past ten months, and that PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Report me, you say?
Dr. K, I'm not trying to destroy your work, but you really need to get those footnotes at the bottom and not clutter the body up with hidden quotations. Yes, there was an editor in here a while back who was overzealous about demanding citations on every line, but inserting hidden quotations makes it nearly impossible to line-edit. I don't see why you think you should "report" me for trying to line edit, when it's your cumbersome manner of inserting the citations that leads to the trouble. I'm not assuming this is your way of trying to make it hard for others to edit behind you, but it does have that effect. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 12:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you could explain to me how to move those quotes to the bottom, I'd be pleased to do the work myself. I regret that I am technically challenged in this respect. I once knew how to do it but can't recall, and am having a hard time finding the appropriate tutorial. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 12:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- There has to be a way; I've done it before. In any case, it isn't helpful to have embedded quotes, because that means only someone trying to edit the text will find the quotes. If you want people to find them, put them at the bottom where they can just click on the footnote and be taken straight to the citation. As someone who's in the straight razor business, I'm grateful for, and impressed by, the work you've done to vastly improve and expand the straight razor article. I disagree with what I presume is your statement about the superiority of thin blades, since it is the consistency and thinness of the cutting edge and the edge-retaining properties of the steel, not the thinness of the blade back of the edge, that determine how well a blade cuts. But you have made this article many times over as informative as it was prior to your contributions, and I am in no way hostile toward you. I regret the technical clumsiness of my edits. I am above all a line-editor, and most of my work is polishing others' work, making prose more understandable and easy to read, correcting punctuation and spelling, etc. If something prevents me from being able to line-edit my reaction is to clear it out with a machete. I will work to preserve the information somehow on the page before removing more material, but it must go, since I plan to edit the page regularly and need to be able to read the bloody text in order to do so. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, everyone can find and read the quotes. They are at the bottom of the article. Take a look now. They are there for all to see at the bottom of the article where all the citations are located. You don't have to edit the article to see them. Many articles have them. Look at Cold Fusion. They are the same. They are always in the body of the article. People edit around them. That's the way it's done. I know of no other way. And it is actually easy to edit with all the quotations present. I do it all the time. You just have to search for a few key words after the end of the quote and you can bypass it. For example, before you go into edit mode find a word after the quote. Now once in edit mode go to your browser's edit button and from the drop down menu choose "Find". In the popup window paste the word that you found and click search. This should take you to a point in the paragraph right after the citation. Dr.K. logos 13:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- There has to be a way; I've done it before. In any case, it isn't helpful to have embedded quotes, because that means only someone trying to edit the text will find the quotes. If you want people to find them, put them at the bottom where they can just click on the footnote and be taken straight to the citation. As someone who's in the straight razor business, I'm grateful for, and impressed by, the work you've done to vastly improve and expand the straight razor article. I disagree with what I presume is your statement about the superiority of thin blades, since it is the consistency and thinness of the cutting edge and the edge-retaining properties of the steel, not the thinness of the blade back of the edge, that determine how well a blade cuts. But you have made this article many times over as informative as it was prior to your contributions, and I am in no way hostile toward you. I regret the technical clumsiness of my edits. I am above all a line-editor, and most of my work is polishing others' work, making prose more understandable and easy to read, correcting punctuation and spelling, etc. If something prevents me from being able to line-edit my reaction is to clear it out with a machete. I will work to preserve the information somehow on the page before removing more material, but it must go, since I plan to edit the page regularly and need to be able to read the bloody text in order to do so. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Also thank you for your kind comments. I also think many of your edits have improved the article and needless to say (but I'll say it nonetheless) I feel no animosity toward you. This is strictly an editing issue with no personal overtones. In response to your thin blade comments, I try to always cite my conclusions. If you find that my conclusions are not supported by the citations please feel free to challenge and/or modify them using other citations. Dr.K. logos 13:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dr. K, you are right, the quotes are always in the hidden text, at least the code is there. If you are going to include the relevant quotes from a source you can't link to online, that's the only way to make the quotes available. I guess the issue is that, if you cite a source that's available online, it saves a lot of space by simply including the outside link in the footnote, and people can go there and read if they want. Otherwise, you can footnote to a work, and if you want the information available to read on Wikipedia, it could be placed in the discussion section for the enlightenment of skeptics who don't have direct access to the printed material you're quoting. Of course, in either case, if you're citing a printed source not available online, the people are trusting you to cite correctly; putting the quotes inside the code doesn't make them more credible. How would you feel about allowing the extensive quotes to be placed on the discussion page?
- You are right about the method for searching out a keyword; unfortunately, I use the Safari browser and it's handicapped in this are; it won't search in the edit window. Perhaps I need to switch to FireFox when I edit. But I still think the material shouldn't be stuffed into the invisible code.
- Thanks for your consideration. As far as the citations supporting the thin-blades-rule notion, I'll give them a look. I can't come up with an argument for saying personal experience should trump documented statements by experts, but I'm curious if you're going off your understanding of possibly uninformed sources, or if by chance you have experience that makes you confident that thin blades are better cutters? Just curious.
- I think we should copy over and continue this discussion on the Straight Razor discussion page. What say ye? --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Preston. Yes let's copy it there. I still think that the citation quotes should remain in the article but let's open a discussion on the talk page of the article and seek other people's opinion. Also I don't know about Safari, but as you say Firefox is great for searching keywords. It has a small window on the lower left of the screen and it automatically goes to the string you are searching for. As far as thin blades I think the fact is (and many sources can be found to support it) that the hollower ground the blade is, the better it is. Hollow ground in my opinion means a a more expensive, and better overall, blade. The blades of my Thiers Issard and DOVO razors are all hollow ground and very thin. No high end manufacturer produces flat ground blades. This is cited in the article. In contrast, the Japanese flat ground razor that I have, is comparatively thicker and does not perform with the same precision or sharpness as the higher end blades, among other things. Anyway let's take this to talk and if you don't mind, please do the honours. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 03:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Tassos! I don't know whether the subject interests you, but since you are an editor whose experience and attitude I value, I thought I'd invite you to have a look at the ongoing second FAC nomination of the Byzantine navy article. Αν έχεις όρεξη, ρίξε μια ματιά. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 14:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Kosta for the invitation and the kind comments. I would be very glad to do this for you. You are an excellent editor and a friend. Take care. (Dr.K. logos 15:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
- I am pleased to inform you that the article has been successfully promoted. Thanks again for your support! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You have mail
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You have mail
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You have mail
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Greek Junta article
I didn't remove anything in my previous edit, I just reorganized the section to be more clear -- the policies being reverted should be at the end of the discussion, not in the middle of it, followed by more talk about when they were in effect. Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was a misunderstanding on my part. I left a message on your talk page. Dr.K. logos 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- No worries.Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Tick tock, tick tock
Aren't wristwatches a laugh? I too don't believe for a minute that the average "diver's" watch experiences significantly more of the sea than it does of outer space; pity our colleague's erudition doesn't extend to reading up on this and saying something worthwhile. Meanwhile, let's hope that all those macho-looking external rotating timers are used for timing spaghetti or something.
Once, years ago (and well before the mobile phone era), I realized that I (i) really needed a wristwatch, and (ii) had left mine at home. So I popped into an electrical shop and bought the cheapest digital wonder that there was. Recently I've found via Yahoo Auction that it's a (minor) collectors' item. Here in Tokyo the norm still seems a large, glittery watch on a strap loose enough to let the thing flop beyond the shirt cuff, for the admiration and envy of all, and the discomfort (I suppose) of the wearer. Entire magazines are devoted to watchporn, the items typically starting at about a thousand times what I paid for my digital watch and about a hundred times what I'd have to pay for it now. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are right on many levels. For a start who would ever think that people feel so strongly about watches that they would start calling other people paid agents of watch companies? Until your reply I took this a little too strongly, but then I saw the other (humorous) side of it. For which I thank you. It was really funny when you think of it. As far as your other points you are right obviously. The only point I wish to make is that watches are commodities like everything else. Cars, jewellery, clothes etc. And like these they can be classified as luxury or utilitarian. Depending on the classification and mystique assigned to them by the culture, they possess value and their price rises and falls. Whatever you can say about watches can also be repeated for many other products society makes. Why do people collect cars? Why do they collect watches? How or why is a product perceived as a classic? What is a classic? If one can answer these questions or at least understand why they exist, then perhaps one can see why some people are happy with utilitarian watches, other people would not be seen wearing a cheap watch and other people, who cannot make up their minds, simply collect all kinds of watches. Or that others keep changing the watches they wear according to fashion or some other, equally arbitrary, criterion. At least that's my 2¢ worth. Anyway it was a pleasure talking to you as always. Take care and thanks for the nice conversation. (Dr.K. logos 04:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
Keeley Hazell
Please see Talk:Keeley Hazell#Sex tape - BLP vio?. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 12:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
olympic airlines privatization and skytrax
Actually myself and Schwertleite (talk · contribs) had been talking about this. I had asked him to re-revert that re addition and had been explaining why. I have asked him to continue on article talk. Mfield (Oi!) 15:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the information. I hope your approach works. Take care. (Dr.K. logos 15:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
Civil
Just to explain that I just gave a general warning about WP:CIVIL it is not an accusation at any invidual but just trying to stop the discussion drifting. It is sometimes not reasonable to give a personal warning on the article talk page as it sometime inflames the situation hence the general notice to all. The next step would be warning on the appropriate individuals talk pages. Apologies if you took it the wrong way. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much MilborneOne for the clarification. I understand your point completely. No need to apologise, even though your gracious gesture is appreciated. You make a very good point and I accept it. It is my turn to apologise if the tenor of my comments was on the personal warning side and thus inappropriate for a talk page. You are right. I just don't appreciate people who instead of dealing with the topic of a discussion, they try to use ad-hominem methods against the editors who oppose them, especially if they keep doing it repeatedly. I consider this to be very unwarranted and incivil and thus the talk page warning. Your message reminded me, in a very graceful way, that the talk page of an article is for improving the article and not for personal warnings, even under adverse circumstances. You set a high (and difficult) standard. But I agree with you and I will follow it. Thank you and take care. (Dr.K. logos 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
Undid revision 280700109 by Serendipitytime : Bruno Meier picture
This picture is a PR picture and it can be used on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipitytime (talk • contribs) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, it cannot be used. The license you have it under (GFDL) is only for completely free pictures. Promo pictures are non-free. See WP:COPYRIGHT. Dr.K. logos 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Kudos!
By the way, wonderful stance on the whole debate, Dr. K, I honestly wish we could all claim to be as calm, collected and reasonable as you here and I completely mean that. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ι concur--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- You just made my day Giorgo. What a wonderful surprise. How are you? Nice to see you in the usual fine form. I can confess now, I really wanted to leave you a message all along but I did not know if it would be prudent to disrupt the poetic solitude of your talk page. Ξέρω επίσης ότι δεν θέλεις να αναμιγνύεσαι πολύ με τα πράγματα εδώ και γι' αυτό δεν θέλησα να σ' ενοχλήσω. Ιδιάιτερα ήθελα να σου πώ πόσο μ' άρεσε το ποίημα του Μίλτου Σαχτούρη. Πολύ επίκαιρο και τοπικά και παγκόσμια. Φίλε μου γειά χαρά και σ' ευχαριστώ και πάλι για την επίσκεψη αυτή. Να τα ξαναπούμε, ελπίζω σύντομα. (Dr.K. logos 13:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
- Thank you very much 3rdAlcove for your nice comments. I value them even more coming from you. You are one of the people I really value the most around here. BTW I replied to your "cradle" comment on the talk page of Greece. As usual you put it so deliciously, I had to attempt a reply. It was really fun and thank you for that. Take care and see you around. (Dr.K. logos 00:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
Ούτε να το ξανασκεφτείς
Τάσο μου εννοείται ότι είσαι πάντοτε καλοδεχούμενος και ελπίζω να μην ξαναδιστάσεις ποτέ. Απλώς το πιθανότερο είναι να διαβάζω, να απαντώ, και όταν η συζήτηση κάνει τον κύκλο της να διαγράφω. Σε άρθρο ή σε σελίδα συζήτησης (πέραν της δικής μου και όσων εκτιμώ) δεν πατάω ξανά ούτε με σφαίρες. Όσα συμβαίνουν (και δεν εννοώ την πρόσφατη Μακεδονιάδα) με κάνουν να απέχω συνειδητά από το εγχείρημα. Άντε να 'ρθεις να τα πούμε κι από κοντά--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Σ' ευχαριστώ και πάλι. Θα ακολουθήσω τη συμβουλή σου πολύ ευχαρίστως ώστε να τα λέμε πότε πότε. Όσο για τη Μακεδονιάδα, για να χρησιμοποιήσω αυτή την αμίμητη έκφρασή σου, ήταν βασικά ένα σοκ για μένα γιατί για πρώτη φορά μπήκα σε τέτοια συζήτηση όπου επικρατεί τέτοια αναρχία και προκατάληψη και πολλά άλλα δεινά αλλά δεν θα επεκταθώ. Ας είναι. Γειά χαρά σου και τα ξαναλέμε. (Dr.K. logos 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
- Ωρέ παιδί μου εφέρανε ένα κουμκουάτ και σε θυμήθηκα, η παναγιά κοντά σου. Νομίζω που εχόρτασες από τα πετεγολέτσια και τσι πομπές τση γουικιπίντιας, ευλογημένε, και είπα μα τον Άι πίπη μου να σου γράψω καμιά μαλαπέρδα να ξεχαστείς γιατί νομίζω που 'χεις μπλέξει με ούλους τσου βουρλισμένους. Στο κάτω κάτω τση γραφής θα 'χεις γκόσει από τσι μπούρδες και φοβούμαι μη σου πέσουνε ωρέ παιδί οι μπάρμπουλες. Απ' ό,τι βλέπω σ' έπιακε κι εσένα το ποντίγιο σου μα κάμε καλά γιατί νομίζω που όποιος μπλέκει με τα τζάτζαλα ρετάρει και δεν αξίζει τον κόπο. Το λέει κάπου κι ο Κουτούζης, η παναγιά κοντά του: "... και τση δίνει ευλογίες ανταμά με παπαρίες"... άκου και το τζίο Γιώργη, κάτι ξέρει...
- Γιώργο μου είναι πάντα μεγάλη η χαρά μου νε σε βλέπω εδώ. Αν και οφείλω να ομολογήσω ότι μου δημιουργείς ολίγον τι σύμπλεγμα διότι στα Κερκυρέικα εσύ είσαι τόσο πολύ ειδήμων που με κάνει να αναλογίζομαι πως είναι δυνατόν να μην είχα πιάσει ας πούμε το ένα τρίτο απ' όσα κατέχεις. Ας είναι. Τα μυστήρια της ζωής υποθέτω. Σ' ακούω καθαρά και πλήρως. Το αναγνωρίζω ότι έχεις απόλυτο δίκιο. Έχω μπλέξει και το ξέρω. Και προς τι το όφελος; Ίσως πετύχω μία καλύτερη μεταχείριση και μη γκετοποίηση των μειονοτήτων εδώ. Ίσως και όχι. Ο χρόνος θα το δείξει αυτό. Επίσης είναι ένα θέμα αρχής. Θα παρατηρήσω την κατάσταση και θα διαλευκάνω την αξία η όχι της όλης προσπάθειας, ελπίζω σύντομα. Όσο για το κουμ κουάτ αν κατέβεις ποτέ από Κέρκυρα ξέρεις καλά που και με ποιόν θα το πιείς. Η πρόσκληση δεν χρειάζεται ανανέωση γιατί είναι, όπως ξέρεις, διαχρονική. Τα Κερκυρέικά μου δυστυχώς είναι οικτρά γι' αυτό δεν θα σε αποχαιρετήσω με την διάλεκτο, αλλά με το απλώς να σε ευχαριστήσω, όπως πάντα, για την υποστήριξη αυτή. Και στην Κέρκυρα.
- Το τσάκισα το κουμ κουάτ και θυμήθηκα ακόμα κι αυτά που δεν θυμόμουν ότι θυμόμουν επομένως μην έχεις πρόβλημα. Χτύπα κι εσύ καμιά τσιτσιμπύρα και θα σου έρθουν όλα. Είδα ότι χαλάστηκες και είπα να σου θυμήσω ότι δεν αξίζει τον κόπο. Σκέψου καλύτερα βουτιές στα πράσινα νερά του Μον Ρεπό, λιχουδιές στον Κυρ Γιάννη κοντά στον Ναυτίλο, καφέδες στη Σπιανάδα και στο Αρτ Καφέ, κρέπες στο Καμπιέλο, συναυλίες στο παλιό φρούριο, βουτιές στο κανάλ ντ' αμούρ, εκδρομές στον Παντοκράτορα, καυγάδες στη Λευκίμη, δελφίνι για Παξούς, βάρκα για το Βίδο, μεζέδες στην Κασσώπη... Αν μετά απ΄όλα αυτά δεν χαλαρώσεις τι να πω... Άσε τους Μαίτλαντ ν' ασχολούνται με την ψηφιακή τους πραγματικότητα κι έλα εδώ να χτυπήσουμε κανά γύρο στο Σαλονικιό ή κανά σοφρίτο με θέα το Ιόνιο. Οι εν Χρισ(τ)ώ αδελφοί μπορούν να κάτσουν παρέα με την ψηφιακή τους πραγματικότητα και τη μούχλα της Γηραιάς Αλβιώνος--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ρε παιδί άσε και καμμιά αξιόλογη τοποθεσία για μένα. Τις περίγραψες σχεδόν όλες, εκτός ίσως από το ακρωτήρι Δράστη, Περουλάδες όπου το ηλιοβασίλεμα είναι το κάτι άλλο και τον κόλπο το Αη Γιώργη με την χερσόνησο με τη διπλή παραλία και φυσικά το Αγγελόκαστρο που τώρα στους πρόποδες έχει και εστιατόριο με θέα το γκρεμό και τη θάλασσα. Και με τη τσιτσιμπύρα μου θύμησες που είχα έλθει μια φορά στην Αθήνα και όταν τη παράγγειλα σε ένα εστιατόριο, το γκαρσόνι μου απάντησε "τσιτσιμπύρα; τι τσιτσιμπύρα;" Έχεις τόσο δίκιο. Υπέροχες οι εικόνες αυτές που μου θύμισες. Καμμία κατάσταση δεν μπορεί ποτέ να τις φθάσει η να τις ξεπεράσει, ψηφιακή η όχι. Σίγουρα λοιπόν σε περιμένω εκεί. Αν όχι τίποτ' άλλο απλώς για να μάθω τελικά αν υπάρχει τίποτα στην Κέρκυρα που δεν ξέρεις :)
- Α, ρε Γιώργη! Όλο φεύγεις και όλο εδώ είσαι! Δεν κόβεις τις μαλακίες για αποσύρση και τέτοια! Μας δουλεύεις τρελά όλους! Δεν ήπιαμε και εκείνον το γαμημένο τον καφέ πριν φύγω. Πάντως, όποιος από τους δυο σας ανέβει κατά Βρυξέλλες πλευρά μέχρι Ιούλιο να μου στείλει αμέσως mail. Κουμκουάτ δεν έχουμε, αλλά καμιά gaufre (και όχι μόνο!) κερνάμε μετά χαράς.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Γιάννη, τι ωραία έκπληξη! Ευχαριστώ πολύ για την πρόσκληση. Δυστυχώς οι Βρυξέλλες δεν βρίσκονται στο πρόγραμμά μου του εγγύς μέλλοντος αν και το gaufre είναι μία ιδιαίτερα ελκυστική και γευστική προοπτική και δη στην πρωτεύουσα της Ευρώπης. Ελπίζω κάποτε αργότερα στο μέλλον να πραγματοποιηθεί. Πάντως, Γιάννη, στην ατζέντα μου το όνομά σου έχει προστεθεί σαν ένας μόνιμος καλεσμένος από μεριά Κέρκυρα. Γειά χαρά σου. (Dr.K. logos 15:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
- Α, ρε Γιώργη! Όλο φεύγεις και όλο εδώ είσαι! Δεν κόβεις τις μαλακίες για αποσύρση και τέτοια! Μας δουλεύεις τρελά όλους! Δεν ήπιαμε και εκείνον το γαμημένο τον καφέ πριν φύγω. Πάντως, όποιος από τους δυο σας ανέβει κατά Βρυξέλλες πλευρά μέχρι Ιούλιο να μου στείλει αμέσως mail. Κουμκουάτ δεν έχουμε, αλλά καμιά gaufre (και όχι μόνο!) κερνάμε μετά χαράς.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ρε παιδί άσε και καμμιά αξιόλογη τοποθεσία για μένα. Τις περίγραψες σχεδόν όλες, εκτός ίσως από το ακρωτήρι Δράστη, Περουλάδες όπου το ηλιοβασίλεμα είναι το κάτι άλλο και τον κόλπο το Αη Γιώργη με την χερσόνησο με τη διπλή παραλία και φυσικά το Αγγελόκαστρο που τώρα στους πρόποδες έχει και εστιατόριο με θέα το γκρεμό και τη θάλασσα. Και με τη τσιτσιμπύρα μου θύμησες που είχα έλθει μια φορά στην Αθήνα και όταν τη παράγγειλα σε ένα εστιατόριο, το γκαρσόνι μου απάντησε "τσιτσιμπύρα; τι τσιτσιμπύρα;" Έχεις τόσο δίκιο. Υπέροχες οι εικόνες αυτές που μου θύμισες. Καμμία κατάσταση δεν μπορεί ποτέ να τις φθάσει η να τις ξεπεράσει, ψηφιακή η όχι. Σίγουρα λοιπόν σε περιμένω εκεί. Αν όχι τίποτ' άλλο απλώς για να μάθω τελικά αν υπάρχει τίποτα στην Κέρκυρα που δεν ξέρεις :)
Just a note on process
Hello . While I respect your disagreement, let me just make a small note on process here. I think we were all hoping that the poll would end with somebody stepping in and making a visible "call" on it by formally closing it. That would have made the following steps easier for all of us. Administrators were asked several times to do so, but declined. In the absence of such a formal outside closure, we are left to our own devices. It so happens that there is actually even an old Arbcom decision specifying that polls can have binding outcomes even without outside closure. Article-content straw polls are different from AfDs, requested-move polls and the like insofar as their technical implementation doesn't require admin intervention, so it is expected that the "involved" participants can figure out for themselves what the result of the poll is.
The relevant Arbcom decision is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions and says:
- After extended discussion, to be effective, the consensus decision making process must close. In many Wikipedia decision making processes, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, an administrator or bureaucrat "closes" the discussion by evaluating the arguments, considering which alternatives have more support and announces a decision, which may be "no consensus", an outcome which, depending on the context, usually has definite consequences. In other, less structured, situations, as in the case of how to structure the titles of television episodes, there is no formal closer. Nevertheless, considering the alternatives proposed, the extended discussion engaged in, expressions of preference, there is a result which should be respected. Absent formal closing, it is the responsibility of users to evaluate the process and draw appropriate conclusions.
- It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.
Don't tell me that Arbcom decision is rather weird; I find it pretty weird in its wording myself, but yeah, for better or worse, that seems to be the current rules of the game.
So, under these circumstances, I will adamantly maintain my position that the poll has indeed ended in a clear mandate. You can call it a "consensus of everybody but a single faction for removal to f.Y.", or you can call it a "no consensus for treating Greece any different from other articles", but what you can definitely not call it is a "consensus for maintaining that exception". The Greece exception was never consensual but only barely tolerated to begin with; we now know more clearly how little consensus it has.
I will not cease editing accordingly. You will need to take me to Arbcom if you want to stop me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Future for the courtesy. I will read your rather lengthy message as soon as I get some free time, because I happen to be slightly busy at present. However I do appreciate the gracious gesture. Take care for now. (Dr.K. logos 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
Compromise at Talk:Greece
I'm going to stay out of the section that you started on my "proposal". You stated my last compromise position accurately so there's no need for clarification. Let's see how it flies. I think that arbitration will still be necessary, though. After so many people said they wanted to wait until after Easter to continue, I'm a bit surprised to see the level of activity over there. I wish you and yours a very happy Easter season (whichever weekend you're celebrating). (Taivo (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
- Thank you very much Taivo. Happy Easter to you too. As far as my proposal I just did it for this article alone. However, as you know, this debate has raised a host of other issues that only arbitration may be able to address. So it may well end up there. I agree. Thanks for the message and all the best of the (combined) Easter season to you too. Take care. (Dr.K. logos 17:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
The WikiProject Greece April 2009 newsletter
The April 2009 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Achillieon History
I am not particularly concerned if you choose to trust the tourist information window implicitly. It may interest you to know that the land was in fact a gift from Petros Vrailas-Armenis, who was my great-great-grandfather, and that Sissi gave him three diamond encrusted broaches, as a gift (one for each of his children), in return. They have the Austrian Royal insignia on them and my family's remains with us to this day. Vrailas was not in need of the money, nor did he want Sissi as a neighbour. However, as a politician and prominent figure within Corfu and Greece, Vrailas was pressured to give up the land - it was deemed that having Sissi as a resident on Corfu would be positive politically. Stubborn as he was he gave the land away rather than sell it. I tell you this because, as someone who has been editing the page for a number of years, you obviously have a personal interest in the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsmakeadifference (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the message and the courtesy of letting me know this. I really appreciate it. Your story is fascinating and I have no reason to disbelieve you. I also believe the citation you provided. The only problem is that the Vrailas family papers are unpublished. As such they cannot be used as inline reference because they cannot be verified independently. Is there a historian who mentions these papers and/or the facts pertaining to Sissi and how your great-great-grandfather gave the land to her? We could use this as a source instead. I know that Corfiote historians such as Spyros Katsaros wrote extensively about Corfu. This important event may very well be referenced in their works. Unfortunately the works of Katsaros are out of print so I cannot get them, even though I looked for them for a very long time. There are some details about some other stories that I would like to read about but so far I haven't been able to find any copies. In case you find anything mentioning your family papers please let me know. Thank you very much. Take care. (Dr.K. logos 19:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
- Thank you for your message and your advice on how best to use Wikipedia. I am not a big user, in fact I'm not sure I've edited much at all, but, in future, if I do edit I will be sure to use your advice. It is a pleasure to offer you this extra information, I thought you might find it interesting. I am not sure about this information being formally published, however, I will re-edit the article if I find that it is. All the best Letsmakeadifference (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It was very kind of you to share the information that was included in your family papers. I found the details you provided fascinating and providing a rare glimpse into an unknown chapter of the history of Corfu. I am personally disappointed that we cannot include this information in the article, especially because I believe you. But I am confident we can find a Corfiote historian who may well have covered these details as you described. Take care and I hope I'll see you again. (Dr.K. logos 06:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
3RR Caution
A note of caution. You appear to have reverted 3 times in a row on the Jim Cramer article. This is allowed in the case of actual vandalism copyright or BLP issues, but not for content and sourcing disputes. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice. But if you noticed the IP is adding content like "Booyah free zone" and "Or maybe you want to shower Skeedaddy with praise? This is another segment where you – the loyal Home Gamer – get unfettered access to Jim’s stock market genius. Hey, we don’t call it the most interactive show on television for nothing." If you think this is content to be put into Wikipedia I simply quit. Or you may want to warn and revert this user so that you can relieve the pressure from me instead for warning me for reverting such garbage and calling it a content dispute. Dr.K. logos 23:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm taking a closer look. Some of those phrases do seem to be valid, as they are in the Mad Money article and also get Google hits. Soe of the material appears to be redundant with the reference to the "main article". I'll look further and might roll back to prior version. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have rolled back the changes by 128.208.36.84 (talk) due to copyright violation. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Move of the article Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia by User:ChrisO and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks,--Yannismarou (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagleemail me 03:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom case: Macedonia 2
Hi. I am one of the participants in the above case and I received your message on my talkpage but when I went to the arbitration page my statement was not there. Could you please include it? Thanks. Dr.K. logos 04:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done, sorry for missing out on it. The fact that you sign as "Dr.K." and had "statement by Dr.K." threw me off ;). Its all fixed with a slight modification to your header to make it clearer that you are one of the parties to the case. —— nixeagleemail me 04:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
FoF
Means "Finding of Fact". John Carter (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for taking the time to explain this John. Take care. (Dr.K. logos 16:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters
Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Alex Jones (radio host), following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards — Cs32en 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
ChrisO hands out illegal warning
I just got a warning from ChrisO for 'Original Research.' I was editing the list in the Macedonia Name Dispute page and I had just removed a reference used fort he Dutch position as it was a dead link. Then I noticed the two GOVT references on this page: [[1]] both point to Denmark using FYROM or FYR Macedonia yet Denmark was in the list under 'List of countries to be sorted.' I moved Denmark to countries which use FYROM, ChrisO immediately reverted stating you need a source that states how Denmark uses the name, not infer it yourself from a random document. I then informed him, the 'random document were two Danish Govt Pages that were already there as references concerning Denmark and reverted. ChrisO then proceeded to revert and dish me out with an 'Original Research Warning.' This time he changed his story and stated: you are inferring Denmark's position, but the documents you cite do not say anything about whether Denmark recognises the constitutional name or not. This is interesting. Most of the list is made up of Embassy pages using the word Macedonia, and immediately they are on the list, under countries who recognise the Republic of Macedonia. I wonder how many of those editors received warnings from ChrisO? I am going to make this action of ChrisO stick as his behaviour in general has downgraded the neutrality Administrators are supposed to have. Any help on how to make him come to account for this action would be most appreciated. He has put the case down here:[[2]] Reaper7 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Why I deleted sentence about Speedwriting in article on Shorthand
Dear Dr.K.,
I deleted the following sentence from the Wikipedia article on Shorthand:
'Speedwriting by Emma Dearborn requires memorization of a unique abbreviation to a corresponding word.'
The reason I deleted it is that it is untrue. It says, or at least implies, that each word has to be learned individually. In reality, Speedwriting, like almost all shorthand systems, relies on the application of rules to generate its abbreviations. You memorise the rules, then you can write the words. Each rule applies to many words. You don't have to memorise the individual words. Of course, as you learn and use a shorthand system, the way that some frequently used words are written become familiar to you. But that is different from requiring memorisation of a unique abbreviation for the word.
Like most shorthands, Speedwriting does employ some short forms for some very common words, e.g. 'of', 'have' & 'very' are written as 'v', 'can' is 'k' and '+' is 'and', but even these are fairly logical, based on phonetic letters or already familiar abbreviations and do not require much memorisation. Most words, though, rely on the application of rules. For example, write a word, leaving out the short vowels in the middle of a word, so 'bill' is 'bl', 'big' is 'bg' & 'book' is 'bk'. I would hardly call these unique abbreviations requiring memorisation.
Also, I found the inclusion of the name of a specific shorthand system at that early juncture in the article a trifle strange.
(About the spelling of 'memorise' & 'memorisation'. We use the 's' instead of the 'z' in Australia.)
Thank you,
Cassyjanek (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Cassyjanek
- Fair enough. Even though I am not a shorthand expert I think you are knowledgeable enough about the subject and that you make some good points. I reverted you because you did not provide an edit summary and thus I did not see the reason behind the removal of the text. Now that you explained it to me please feel free to redo your edit. Thank you for your message and best regards down under. Dr.K. logos 05:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
I have 4 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Julian, that was lightning fast. I am honoured. Take care and thank you very much. (Dr.K. logos 23:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC))
ThankSpam
Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
 |
- Thank you LHvU. It was a pleasure participating at your RfA. Nice picture choice. Looks like a really nice workplace. The brimstone is already there. The only thing mising is the fire. Must be the next step up I guess. Dr.K. logos 17:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Straits of Corfu
Thanks for taking on the task of getting this article in non-copy vio shape. I have no time to research and reference the incident and was only comfortably writing up the geography with limited references. --KP Botany (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much KP Botany for your kind comments and for taking the time to fix the article. I wrote the Corfu Channel Incident originally, so I thought it was a good fit to add the incident info to the article. I'll still clean it up a bit more and add the Suleiman invasion, one of these days. It's been nice meeting you and working with you and Moonriddengirl. Take care. (Dr.K. logos 22:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC))
megalomania
Hi, I took the definition of mania from mania's wiki page. The definition of mania in megalomania's article said that mania "is a Greek word [...] meaning [...] obsession." But the Greek word μανία technically does not mean obsession.Roastporkbun (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the primary meaning in Greek is not "obsession" but when it is in a compound word then it denotes "obsession". I also replied on the talk page of the article. Dr.K. logos 03:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Phoenicia
The information that was there before i put my information up was unsourced which means it didn't even have a source let alone having a valid or invalid source as you say my information does. The information I put up is completely valid and I have two different sources for it. It is also much more valid and less biased than what the previous version was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetoril (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- The citation you used is from the mountlebanon church website. Doug told you that this is not a reliable source. I agree with Doug. Dr.K. logos 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Another source:
http://phoenicia.org/maronites.html
The Arab Invasion Between 635 and 637, Damascus, Baalbek, Acre, Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, and many other cities fell to Arab invaders. Many Maronites living in the low lands joined their brothers in the Mount Lebanon. The mountain offered no attraction to the desert Arabs who considered agriculture below there dignity and who new little of industry and nothing of maritime trade. The Maronites high in the mountain resisted and as the caliphs did not realize the strategic importance of Lebanon and left it to itself. Constantinople recruited mountaineers from the Taurus to infiltrate Lebanon and join the Maronites in harassing the Arabs. The resistance movement became known as Marada or Mardiates, meaning rebels. The Maronites became a problem for the Umayyad Dynasty (661-750), who facing a civil war with the followers of Ali, decided to pay a tribute to the Maronites so as to ensure good behavior. This arrangement lasted for over 40 years. Joetoril (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not reliable enough. Sorry. Anyway the article as well as the edit you try to make are about Phoenicia, not the Maronites. Dr.K. logos 20:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus
Well, as it turned out, both of the articles you tagged were deleted as copyvios and banned-user contributions.
First, I want to apologize for using rollback on your tagging. Also it seems we both learned something in what happened yesterday. Sometimes political entities can emerge and disappear without leaving much of a mark, and in other occasions they can become notable without ever seeing the light of day. Take California, for example. Very few of its residents know that their home state was once an independent country - for 25 days. They would laugh at the very notion of that. Also, there are those who still do not know that "Republic of China" actually refers to Taiwan, and not mainland China.
About the north vs. northern issue, I'll simply say this: my mother tongue, French, makes no distinction whatsoever between these two terms, and I have no doubt that there are many other languages that don't see one either. It is mainly a distinction made in the English language, and that distinction is becoming more and more blurred when looking at the names of newly independent countries (Northern Mariana Islands, for example). I suspect that Greek and Turkish, the languages spoken in Cyprus, are not making that distinction either, and even if they were I doubt that a naming issue is part of the conflicts that oppose the two sides of the Green Line. In the end, on this I'll go with consensus without even participating in its establishment, being as far removed as one could be from the Greek-Turk conflicts.
(As an aside, do you believe the name "Upper Macedonia" would be acceptable to Greeks in general in the naming dispute of FYROM? I mean, not in Wikipedia, but as the country's official name?) -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Blanchardb and thank you very much for this kind gesture. I am also sorry if I sounded harsh toward you yesterday but such are the perils of the editing environment here. In the anonymity and chaos of the place there are sometimes inevitable conflicts. As long as people are fundamentally rational and fair these incidents short themselves out, as they have in this case. Anyway, I had no idea that the editor who caused all this was a sock of a banned user but I knew something was up due to the blatant POV, obscure terms, references to neolithic history etc. The problem was that I am not experienced in this line of work (WP:CSD, WP:AFD) and I should have prodded just to be safe or take it to afd like you did later. Using the hoax tag was a mistake, but as I wrote on the deletion page, honestly, I had never heard of the Federated State of North Cyprus. To make matters worse I read in the article that it was established in 1975. Then the first section in the article was "Neolithic age-1500s". Neolithic history, for a state I had never heard of, that was established in 1975? I prodded it at first but then I tagged it as a hoax.Checking the user's others contribs, I then went to the North Cyprus portal where it was set up like a tourist guide, welcoming visitors to the TRNC in Turkish and English, describing it as: "an eastern mediterranean country located in the north of Cyprus island", while having the picture of a politician with the caption "Partition or Death" and introducing Cyprus as the "country of Greek Cypriots". That is not the content that a portal in Wikipedia is supposed to feature. The POV was so extreme that I thought it was a hoax too. Obviously you did not agree with me and the rest is history. Finally Future Perfect at Sunrise gave me the correct deletion tag due to the sockpuppetry of the user and so these articles were deleted for the proper reasons. I did not participate in the "North vs Northern" debate but I believe that "Northern" in English may subtly denote the northern part of a contiguous country rather than a separate entity, but as your Northern Mariana Islands example indicates this may not be the case for long. As for your example, of the California Republic, you are right. It is an obscure fact. People may even believe it's a hoax :) As far as the term "Upper Macedonia", I think that at least it has a geographic qualifier which avoids the monopolisation of the term "Macedonia". I think that's a good idea. I could easily live with it and I don't see why a reasonable person would object to it. Anyway sorry for the long reply and it was very nice meeting you. Take care. (Dr.K. logos 02:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC))
Τώρα που βρήκαμε παπά να θάψουμε πέντ' έξι
"Από την πόρτα σου περνώ και τηγανίζεις ψάρια και μου πετάς έναν κιοφτέ, 'φχαριστώ δεν καπνίζω"
or even
"Ματζουράνα στο κατώφλι, γάιδαρος στα κεραμίδια, από τότε που σε γνώρισα ακρίβυνε η φέτα".--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Al;eaj iup ea w19890-3r kajfm;ma λλκαλ΄κδ pjswv οκξΟ[ok[πξοπΞΚ[7230004--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ναι ρε παιδί. Έχεις δίκιο όπως πάντα. Το θέατρο του παραλόγου. Και να συμμετέχεις. Τι ιστορία. Χαίρομαι όπως πάντα να σε βλέπω εδώ. . (Dr.K. logos 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC))
...well one can always start laughing, η Παναγιά κοντά του! This whole situation reminds me of a joke: Τη δεκαετία του '70, όταν ακόμα οι πολιτικές παρατάξεις ήταν στα φόρτε τους και οι Κομουνιστές Εσωτερικού και Εξωτερικού τρώγονταν σαν τα κοκόρια, έχουν βγει για αφισοκόληση δύο συνεργεία: ένα της ΚΝΕ κι ένα της ΕΚΟΝ Ρήγας Φεραίαος. Εκεί λοιπόν που αφισοκολούνε μετά μανίας, περνάει ένα φορτηγό και πατάει έναν από το συνεργείο της ΕΚΌΝ... Τι να κάνουν κι οι Κνίτες, παρατάνε τις βούρτσες, παρατάνε τους κουβάδες, παρατάνε τις αφίσες, ξεχνάνε και τα κομματικά μίση και τρέχουν να βοηθήσουν. Στον δρόμο κείτεται ένας νεολαίος της ΕΚΟΝ και ψυχορραγεί...
-"Γρήγορα", λέει... "γρήγορα! Φέρτε μου μια αίτηση να γραφτώ στην ΚΝΕ!"
-"Μα τι είναι αυτά που λες;" Πετιέται ο Κνίτης. "Δεν υπάρχει περίπτωση η μεγάλη λαϊκή παράταξη να δεχτεί στους κόλπους της ένα διασπαστή, ένα φραξιοναλιστή, έναν προδότη του εργατικού κινήματος και σφουγγοκωλάριο του κεφαλαίου, έναν οπορτουνιστή, έναν σεκταριστή, έναν ευρωσοσιαλιστή ...σαν κι εσένα!"
-"Μα σε παρακαλώ" του απαντάει ο πεσμένος, "Δεν βλέπεις ότι σβήνω; Άσε με να κάνω το σωστό πριν πεθάνω. Μην πάω έτσι άδικα, χωρίς να κάνω τουλάχιστον μια φορά στη ζωή μου αυτό που πρέπει..."
Το σκέφτονται οι Κνίτες... το ξανασκέφτονται, και τελικά αποφασίζουν να του την κάνουν τη χάρη..
-"Έλα λοιπόν", λέει ο Κνίτης στον χτυπημένο που πνέει τώρα τα λοίσθια, "νάτηνα την αίτηση. Σου τη φέραμε. Μπορείς να υπογράψεις!"
Ο πληγωμένος συγκεντρώνει όσες δυνάμεις του έχουν απομείνει και με κόπο βάζει την υπογραφή του.
-"Σύντροφε...", ρωτάει πλέον ο Κνίτης τον πεσμένο λίγο πριν πεθάνει, "θες μήπως να πεις κάτι τελευταίο;"
-"Ναι!" απαντάει ο άλλος την ώρα που ξεψυχάει "...Τα κατάφερα! Ένας Κνίτης λιγότερος!!!!!!!!"--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Ευχαριστώ
It would be uncivil of me not to thank you (and Esem0) for the nice words[3] so thank you very much. Remind me to treat you with a Guiness some time.Shadowmorph ^"^ 13:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words Shadowmorph and thanks for the beer. You have impeccable taste. It's my favourite pint. Take care. Dr.K. logos 18:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Macedonia A1 proposal
A1 is a proposal for the Greece-related articles: Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia/Greece-related. Of course it is natural to be confused in all this mess. Shadowmorph ^"^ 16:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Shadowmorph. I agree. It is almost hopeless. Take care. (Dr.K. logos 17:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
The Bulgarian Genocide
Yesterday I added a link to the Bulgarian Genocide entry, but I forgot to sign in, so instead of my nickname the IP address appeared.I don't need to 'refrain from making unconstructive edits', as I never make such.I hope all my edits are indeed constructive.May I ask you why adding a link to a legitimate Wikipedia entry 'appears to constitute vandalism'?I don't want to 'experiment', so thanks, but no thanks for the 'sandbox'.Sandboxes are for children, and I'm an adult.It's outrageous that you would delete links to other wikipedia entries.Don't you think that the greek genocide is connected to the bulgarian genocide?Say somebody just finished reading about the suffering of the greek people, don't you think that they may want to inform themselves as to what was happening to the bulgarians at the same time?Both genocides were instigated by the Ottoman empire and a link wouldn't be unappropriate.I hope the vandalism allogation was a misunderstending on your part and not an attempt to suppress free speach /which is not only free, but also reasonably presented with all the references to make it legitimate/.In order to avoid misunderstanding and to demonstrate my good will, I wouldn't add the link to the Bulgarian Genocide entry outright.But I hope that it would appear there soon enough, so that readers could put things in prospect and make sense of all the suffering that happened in the Balkans.Thank you for reading Kansai mikan (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC) 22:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC+9)
Sorry. I saw this diff and I thought it was vandalism from the edit summary of this user. I also thought that Bulgarian Genocide was a red link. So I reverted you as vandalism for re-adding what I thought was a red link. I had never heard of the Bulgarian Genocide. So I do apologise for reverting you as a vandal. It was an honest mistake. I am going to revert myself immediately. As far as welcoming you to Wikipedia and the reference to the Sandbox, it is simply the standard template. As I thought you were just an IP you cannot blame me for not knowing you were a registered user. So I hope my reply answers your questions and alleviates your concerns. Thanks again.Dr.K. logos 16:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I strike my comments above because this is some kind of trick. You created the article yesterday. So it was a red link exactly as I thought it was when I checked Xenovatis' edit. It was not my mistake. Your article may or may not survive. Until it is proven that it is a viable article I will remove the link from the article of the Greek genocide. I have no idea about this "Bulgarian genocide" that you just wrote. But you cannot blame someone for taking out a red link when in fact it was a red link. Creating the article immediately after and then accusing someone of deleting the link is not good form. Dr.K. logos 18:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Stanhope (optical viewer)
|
On July 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stanhope (optical viewer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Twice???
Why does User talk:JoseEdo need to be warned twice for one edit?--The LegendarySky Attacker 05:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I must have had more edit conflicts than anyone. I was just confused becuase I had both reverted AND warned before you. I see you have undone your revision.--The LegendarySky Attacker 06:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I did. I reverted with TW the user's edit, at the same time as you did. TW then opened the talk page of the user and I left a warning. I saw your warning on the user's talkpage, but it did not refer to a specific article, so I thought your warning on their talkpage was for a different article. After I realised that the editor only had one edit I reverted my edit and immediately after I reverted my edit you left a message on my talk page. However please use a bit more WP:AGF next time. People, generally, don't enjoy leaving multiple messages for the same infraction. Dr.K. logos 06:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't assuming bad faith at all. Happy editing.--The LegendarySky Attacker 06:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the number of question marks in your section title here gave me a different impression. But WP:AGF is a two way street. I'll assume it of you as well. Happy editing. Dr.K. logos 06:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Cheers.--The LegendarySky Attacker 06:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
Seeing that you have participated in the name debate over this city in the past, I was wondering if you would be interested in doing so again, in light of the fact that new evidence has been brought forward at Talk:Vlorë#Name consensus. --Athenean (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Michael Sellers (actor)
Hi, I only have the Ham & High in its original form and they have only been putting their whole paper on line for about 2 years now. If I had a proper online link I would have added it naturally. I am trying to add to the knowledge of the subject and his relationship with his father. That is the reason for my addition. Hope you understand. Thanks for being so diligent. Captainclegg (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that this satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. We may need a third opinion. Dr.K. logos 19:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I am sure that you are aware that the Ham & High is the leading London weekly newspaper. You say "Source cannot be verified. Therefore we need verification of source" which seems to me to be a circular, Catch-22 argument! Perhaps you can suggest a method of doing this? As the paper was not on-line then, there is no way it can be read on-line. They apparently have no intention (or money) to post their back-copies. Does this mean that any information prior to the 'information revolution' is unverifiable and so unsatisfactory and cannot be used? I shall start to consider editing Shakespeare as soon as...!!! If however you are dissatisfied with the information provided, which I think illuminates the dreadful relationship Sellers had with his father, then please feel free to delete it. I really don't want a fight. I just want information to be widely available. That is why I am so keen about Wiki. Captainclegg (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- No Captainclegg. Most definitely I don't want a fight and I welcome any edits in the article which help substantiate the bad relation between Michael and his father. The only problem is, as I think you can appreciate, if we had a book someone could go to a library, in any country, and verify the info, guided by the page number. Now we have a newspaper article. Libraries don't stock them as widely as books. This opens up the door to the possibility that another editor citing an article in another newspaper in some other country could make any claim they want safe in the knowledge that since the newspaper article is not online, or even widely available, they can say anything they want. I am just trying to defend the integrity of the citation process. Let me be clear: I am not saying you are making stuff up. I believe you transcribed the article correctly and competently. But the credibility of a citation cannot be defended merely on the basis of trust. It must also be independently verifiable. Having said that I am ok with leaving your edit in the article. I made a few changes. Let me know if you have any further concerns. Take care for now. Dr.K. logos 20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you and well argued. I totally agree with your comments. I am content to leave it as it stands. I should add that I think that the Daily Mail are incorrect about his age at the time of the divorce. He was born in 1954 and they divorced in 1961= 7 years old. As the Ham & High article states. Pax Vobiscum! Captainclegg (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your nice comments. I really appreciate your feedback. I will make the change to the article to reflect the uncertainty about the age. Cheers. Dr.K. logos 20:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
A concern
I know this isn't your "area", but I stumbled on to this "article", Assyrian war of independence. From first glance, it appears to be a heavily POV'd attempt to justify the Ottoman Empire's actions during WWI. Would you be able to get this article up for deletion? What are your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Kansas Bear. What a nice surprise! Nice to see you after such a long time. At first glance the article looks as if it cited and sourced. The problem with its citations is that they are from books and therefore you have to have the exact copy to verify the facts. That's problematic for 99% of us who don't have that particular book. To make matters worse my knowledge of this area is very limited. I could not support any arguments for deletion because I lack knowledge of the background of the events. Also for an article to be deleted it must be unsalvageable. Do you think this is just the usual case of rampant POV and original research that qualifies for deletion? Or is the subject matter notable enough to qualify for cleanup and maybe a rescue attempt? I can't answer these questions but I am sure that you, as a historian, can. If you think I can help any other way let me know. Take care for now. (Dr.K. logos 00:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC))
- Hello Dr. K. How are things with you? Sorry to have dropped this in your lap. So, as I had suspected, I'm going to have to go through and verify the accuracy of each reference. Thus, ensuring that the article isn't just a form of nationalistic original research. Thanks for letting me "bounce this off your head". :-D --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
inpiscinate
I am sorry if there has been a problem with me editing "inpiscinate". This page was created in an attempt by my teacher to see if we could spread this word across the internet. Please let this page stay, it is only for a class project. I don't see any problem with it, I mean, who is going to see it anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hossmonkey585 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- You can add it to Wiktionary. That's where the dictionary terms are stored. Unfortunately keeping it here goes against our policies. Please also consult WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Dr.K. logos 04:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do not add it to Wiktionary. It is vandalism. Same goes for inspiscinate. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
G4
Hi, thanks for patrolling new pages. I just wanted to remind you that {{db-g4}} / {{db-repost}} is for pages that have been deleted after a deletion discussion. If a page that was speedily deleted gets recreated, just tag it with the same tag once more. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- You don't have to remind me because I never forgot; this is the first time I hear this. Thanks anyway. Dr.K. logos 06:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
How is Sharton an attack page? Mr.TrustWorthy----Talk to Me! 06:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. I quote from the article: Sharton best describes any one who tries to cramp your style, shart being a common variation of the english "slang" word shit and the english word on. Now if you google the word "Sharton" you will see it is a company. According to the article this company "cramps your style" and it derives from the word "shit". Got it? Dr.K. logos 07:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
CHU
Re the removed portion of your comment; just go to WP:CHU and use the interwiki links. There will often be English help, if not, Google translate can help you figure out the right process. Most projects do have English-speaking bureaucrats anyway. –xenotalk 16:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Xeno but I removed it because I realised that in most of the other wikis I may be using the same name, so I don't think I'll need the translation services. It's been some time since I logged in there so I have to recheck the wikis, the passwords and usernames just to make sure. Take care. (Dr.K. logos 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC))
- If the name is the same, but the password different, you just key in your password for the other wiki at Special:MergeAccount. –xenotalk 17:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Removed speedy deletion tag: JamesDee
Hi Dr.K.! Firstly, thanks for helping out in CSD areas. I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on JamesDee- because: being a "knight of the realm" is a claim to notability, and in this case a hoax If you have any questions or other message, please contact me. Thanks Kingpin13 (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- If the claim is uncited it is worthless. I hope you realise that. Therefore my initial A7 estimate was accurate. Now you chose to treat the knighthood claim as a hoax. Your subjective opinion in this matter is not any better than mine. Further I don't appreciate bolded text because I can read bolded as well as unbolded text equally well. Finally thank you for helping out with new page patrol. Dr.K. logos 02:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there, the claim doesn't have to be cited. Please see WP:CSD#A7; "even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source". As to the bolding, sorry about that, the script I use comes with the reason bold. Since you don't like this I will now change it before using it again. Sorry it took me so long to get back. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Nir's Depression Syndrome
Although I did not create the page, I did give the editor the benefit of the doubt and placed an under-construction tag to stave off speedy deletions. You placed a speedy deletion, however at the current time I do not see any info in Gbooks regarding Nir's syndrome.keystoneridin! (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is a sure sign that it is a hoax. Thanks for the message. Dr.K. logos 03:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Another sign is that the editor can't even spell right. Yet another is the total lack of references. Dr.K. logos 03:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
What happened to my DE60LFA???
Hi there, sir! Do you know what happened to my New Flyer DE60LFA?
--Bus Master-Transit Bus a.k.a. The Know It All Of Buses!! 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bus Master-Transit Bus (talk • contribs)
- Not sure what you are enquiring about and why I am supposed to know about it. The article you linked is still there. Dr.K. logos 20:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero , an RFC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with a Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invitation but I don't remember this. Could you possibly provide a diff? Many thanks. Dr.K. logos 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
corfu
all the pictures in corfu are at wrong sections...they are unrelated why you changed my edit? Greco22 (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not all the pictures are in the wrong sections. Many are related to the sections they are in. But I don't mind if you move them around. But you deleted some pictures and replaced others with new ones that I don't think are that good. Plus you don't have to put all the pictures at exactly the right location because of space restrictions. If you just want to put the pictures at different locations I don't mind. But if you delete them then we have to talk about that. Same goes for any replacements. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 18:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Jay Busbee page
I wasn't really experimenting on that page, I was actually building it for peer review and move to a real page. If I created the page in a faulty area of the site please tell me and I will move it accordingly. Thank you. TimidObserver (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. It is a common mistake. Before you create a page associated with your username you must prefix it with User:TimidObserver not just TimidObserver. Using "User:TimidObserver" ensures your article goes to userspace and not the Wikipedia namespace which is reserved only for normal articles. Dr.K. logos 04:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- And by the way its classification as a test page was not meant to criticise you. It was the only available option appropriate enough for your case under WP:CSD. There are no "innocent mistake" or similar criteria under the speedy deletion policy. Dr.K. logos 04:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Human Vs Computer
Hey, I'm just curious as to why you deleted that page? I'm not angry or anything like that (very glad you saved in my userspace), but I'm not sure if you understood why I was doing that. I wished for my adoptee to gain some good article edits, and be able to edit in the article namespace without editing through subpages. If it's okay, I will re-create the article without my little stamp there. The only reason I put the stamp there was to manage talk posts so that they stayed in a realm where I could mediate them (if needed). No hard feelings, Marx01 Tell me about it 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- First I did not delete it. I just tagged it for deletion and the deletion was done by an admin. Second we don't normally use namespace to teach people how to edit articles, we leave this kind of activity for userspace, Also the article had only one reference while most of the claims made were unsupported by citations. The title was also malformed because we don't normally use abbreviations such as "vs" in the titles of articles. And the title was also slightly simplistic. "Human Vs Computer" does not sound very academic or encyclopedic. Also the capitalisation of "Vs" appears slightly irregular. For all these reasons I thought that the article did not yet qualify to be in namespace. Dr.K. logos 18:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I checked the article as it is now. Unfortunately it looks like WP:OR at the moment. I don't think it can survive reentry into namespace in its present state. Dr.K. logos 18:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I noticed the OR issue too. I already talked to Cpiral about that, but I also requested he not link or cite anything yet because I wanted to drill some MOS issues on him (knowing that the first attempt would have major problems). I personally apologize for the title error... I should have looked at the MOS. I know you did not delete it, but you tagged it, so I knew that you would be the best person to go to asking why. I also was unaware that it is not really plausible to take the adoption process to the article-space. I assumed it was all right, seeing as part of the real-world learning process is field work. Thanks I will not make any of those mistakes again. However, I must ask one more question; is it Wikipedia policy to not develop an article in the article-space, having numerous errors, if it has the {{underconstruction}} template in place? I am not in the deleting business, so I'm not sure that if I were to re-post it with the corrections you made whether or not it would be deleted. Happy editing (and tagging)
Marx01 Tell me about it 23:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting way to put it. I think of myself not so much as being in the deletion business but rather as trying as best I can to clean up namespace. Regardless thanks for asking my opinion. Your proposed article "Human vs Computer" attempts to analyse and juxtapose human and computer characteristics. The question is, are you attempting this analysis on your own and trying to find reliable sources to support your ideas? If that is the case you may want to check WP:SYNTH which disallows use of published sources to advance or promote your ideas. If not then you must find a published work or works which specifically compares humans to computers and maybe use the title they use in the published work(s) as opposed to using your own made-up title. You can also check as an example the article Is Google Making Us Stupid?, where the analysis is done based on a pre-existing work and associated title. I hope this clears up a few things. Don't hesitate to ask me if you have any other questions. It was nice talking to you. Take care :) Dr.K. logos 01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I'm trusting my adoptee on this one, as they said they had reliable books on the subject. I will also refer that article and your other suggestions to my adoptee. Also no offense meant by the 'deleting business' thing; You just seem to have experience in it. No worries, I might come back with more wuestions later, have an awesome day =D. Marx01 Tell me about it 23:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- No problem at all. It was actually a fun (and quite apt) description of my deletion related activities. I actually liked it and thanks for your nice comments. As far as your adoptee and his plans regarding the article that's fine. If he has a plan I see no reason for worries. Take care for now and have an equally awesome time :-) Dr.K. logos 01:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I'm trusting my adoptee on this one, as they said they had reliable books on the subject. I will also refer that article and your other suggestions to my adoptee. Also no offense meant by the 'deleting business' thing; You just seem to have experience in it. No worries, I might come back with more wuestions later, have an awesome day =D. Marx01 Tell me about it 23:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting way to put it. I think of myself not so much as being in the deletion business but rather as trying as best I can to clean up namespace. Regardless thanks for asking my opinion. Your proposed article "Human vs Computer" attempts to analyse and juxtapose human and computer characteristics. The question is, are you attempting this analysis on your own and trying to find reliable sources to support your ideas? If that is the case you may want to check WP:SYNTH which disallows use of published sources to advance or promote your ideas. If not then you must find a published work or works which specifically compares humans to computers and maybe use the title they use in the published work(s) as opposed to using your own made-up title. You can also check as an example the article Is Google Making Us Stupid?, where the analysis is done based on a pre-existing work and associated title. I hope this clears up a few things. Don't hesitate to ask me if you have any other questions. It was nice talking to you. Take care :) Dr.K. logos 01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I noticed the OR issue too. I already talked to Cpiral about that, but I also requested he not link or cite anything yet because I wanted to drill some MOS issues on him (knowing that the first attempt would have major problems). I personally apologize for the title error... I should have looked at the MOS. I know you did not delete it, but you tagged it, so I knew that you would be the best person to go to asking why. I also was unaware that it is not really plausible to take the adoption process to the article-space. I assumed it was all right, seeing as part of the real-world learning process is field work. Thanks I will not make any of those mistakes again. However, I must ask one more question; is it Wikipedia policy to not develop an article in the article-space, having numerous errors, if it has the {{underconstruction}} template in place? I am not in the deleting business, so I'm not sure that if I were to re-post it with the corrections you made whether or not it would be deleted. Happy editing (and tagging)
thanks
thanks for removing the speedy from Persian Empire/forRfC. I will put db-author on it after about 7 days. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't mention it. It was the least I could do as soon as I saw your talkpage request. Take care. Dr.K. logos 03:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have removed your db-hoax tag from this article, because I don't think it's that - Google shows that the word is bandied about to some extent, the author hasn't made it up. I don't think the article meets WP:NEO, but I don't think it's speediable - I'll talk to the author and will probably PROD or AfD unless he can produce convincing sources. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- The way the author presented this as a new type of diet akin to vegetarianism is an obvious hoax. The mere fact that this term is bandied about in a couple of websites but for a different reason and definition does not make this article any less of a hoax. Prodding or afding it is a waste of process and time. Dr.K. logos 20:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
User: Wasimawan
Hmmm, I see that he is getting the info from that website where you are linking with the CSD but what do you think he is referring to when he says at the bottom of the articles that the source is in the public domain? Maybe that website links to the public domain source of 1902? Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I checked that too. The website attribution specifies "Attribution" and "No commercial use". I don't think this is free enough for Wikipedia. Take care. Dr.K. logos 08:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- You can also check the articles' talk pages for more precise info. Dr.K. logos 08:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the info!Calaka (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are very welcome. Thank you for your inquiry and for your observation about the date of the work. It makes me think if indeed the work, since it was published in 1902, is public domain and as such not copyrightable. In this case, can (should) the copyright requirements of the hosting website be bypassed? I think we need the opinion of a copyright expert. Dr.K. logos 15:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the info!Calaka (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for William S. Dix
|
|
On October 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William S. Dix, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The Resistance Reception/Reviews list not neutral but biased unfavourably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.209.104 (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from Gino the Minnow
Hello Dr.K., this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Gino the Minnow has been removed. It was removed by Westlablonde with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Westlablonde before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw you warned Alex Ji LT-21 . Why is that bad? SineBot created it an I think it is useful, but I don't know about you. What is your opinion? RuneScape Adventure Sign! 02:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please elaborate? I don't seem to understand your question. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 02:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Dr.K.
I note that you have reverted my edits to the Aung San Suu Kyi page. I have contacted GlassCobra directly about this, as that user originally reverted my edit to "Prime-Minister Elect" point.
I have explained in detail on the discussion page of Aung San Suu Kyi topic the reason why it makes no sense to use the "Prime Minister-elect" designation for her, since she would not have assumed that position even if the regime had recognized the landslide election victory of the NLD in 1990. I'd be grateful if you would respond to that discussion rather then simply reverting edits made to the page.
Thanks and best regards
Richard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.78.131 (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I guess you must have been using a different IP number because I can find no edits by 63.173.78.131 in the history of the article talkpage. Regardless, I replied there. Dr.K. logos 20:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
MfD
I have mentioned this at WP:AN/I, as customary in such cases-- [4] DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Phoenicia
I think you are biased against the blatant fact that there is a link between the Phoencians and modern day Lebanese. And when you say "youtube" is not a reliable source you are saying if the creators of "youtube" posted something about history it would not be "reliable" which I agree on, but that has nothing to do with my edit. My edit is a DIRECT UPLOAD of a video BY NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. NOT BY YOUTUBE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.109.105 (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please take this to the article talkpage. Actually I am not the only one reverting you and personally I couldn't care less about your DNA claims and there is no way I am biased. Also please do not use capital letters on my talk page. I don't like shouting. Dr.K. praxislogos 02:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Kradam Spam.
I have to admit, I'm immensely amused. This isn't typical vandalism; this is imperialistic in nature and more well-organized than an Iraq invasion. It appears as though a flood of fantards are editing both Adam's AND Kris's page with Kradam nonsense.
At least, though, it's a nice departure from the typical bashing and slander vandalism. They're aware of the silliness. Just wondered if you picked up on the same vibe from the edits that I did though =P.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 02:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. I'm not an expert on the subject so I was not aware of the various grades of vandalism. I'll look up Kradam. But I agree on that this is very well coordinated and really silly. Take care. Dr.K.praxislogos 02:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank You
Thank you, Dr. K. for your friendly welcome and valued assistance. Warm regards. Robertholtz (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeia Sou!
Long time no see. I am back to WP and thought I'd catch up.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Glad to see you back. Take care and welcome back. 21:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would like your opinion and hints on the article Byzantine Greeks I am working on. I am worried about the citation use and format. I look forward to your reply. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would be very glad to check it out and see if I can assist in any way. Thanks for the invitation. Dr.K.praxislogos 14:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent work Dr.K.! The article has been improved massively and the citation issue I was worried about no longer applies, the ones you provided look professional! I will be using that format myself from now on. Thank you!--Anothroskon (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would be very glad to check it out and see if I can assist in any way. Thanks for the invitation. Dr.K.praxislogos 14:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would like your opinion and hints on the article Byzantine Greeks I am working on. I am worried about the citation use and format. I look forward to your reply. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Can i talk to you from skype or any other messenger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick16 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Maverick16. I don't use any messenger-type services because my typing skills are nowhere near capable of real-time conversation. If you wish you can send me an email. It may be old fashioned but it is by far my preferred mode of off-wiki communication. Take care for now. Dr.K.praxislogos 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Aung San Suu Kyi talk page
I am sorry you "don't like [my] tone", but I have made scrupulous efforts to be entirely civil. Your opinion of my tone apart, would you care to respond to my points? Vilĉjo (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Your tone now is vastly better and not as judgmental so I have no problem talking to you. The anon accused me by name claming that I introduced inaccuracies. This is a personal attack. He could have said that the edits I reverted to were inaccurate. So instead of commenting on me as a person he should have commented on the edits that I reverted to. This is what the WP:NPA policy states. "Comments should be made on the edits not on the editors". He could also have provided diffs. I would not object to that at all. As a regular editor here I think you should be able to see the mistakes the anon made. As far as my mentioning the wp:3rr policy it was not to intimidate you in any way. It was just a reminder that maybe we can take this to dispute resolution and not start reverting each other. Dr.K.praxislogos 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I understand what you are saying, but I disagree on your reading of WP:NPA. I see nothing there to suggest that saying "X is introducing inaccuracies" is making a personal attack or commenting on X as a person any more than saying "The material X is introducing is inaccurate"; I think the distinction you are making is one that most people would not recognise (and would not be bothered by even if they did). I would also point out that the user in question was a newbie and would almost certainly not have known how to provide diffs. (I'm sure I don't need to remind you of WP:BITE, which is relevant here, as the two of you seem to have got almost immediately into accusing each other of vandalism, when to me as an observer it seems to have been a very obvious and legitimate content dispute.)
- I don't see this as a sufficiently major issue to take to dispute resolution (let alone get into an edit war), so may I just ask you to reflect on these points? Thanks. Vilĉjo (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are wrong about WP:BITE simply because you do not know the whole story. This story started when the anon under another IP address disputed the fact that Aung Sun Suu Kyi was entitled to be called Prime Minister-Elect. The anon IP signed his name as Richard. We had a very civil discussion with Richard at the article talk page which I am sure you can find. After we had the discussion Richard (the IP's self-signed name) did not reply any further and I thought the matter was closed. After a week or so another IP started reverting the cited fact that ASSK was elected PM on the basis that she was held by the junta during the election, but did not provide any inline citations to support their facts. Without cited sources this is simply WP:OR. I gave them a level 1 warning reminding them to cite their facts but the IP kept reverting. After that they got a a wp:3rr warning because they would not stop reverting and they would not supply any inline citations. This is not under the purview of WP:BITE under any stretch of the imagination but simply standard procedure of gently escalating mesages when the anon does not comply with the policies. I then found out from their signing the talk page of the article today that the "new" IP was the old "Richard". This is the whole story. But I am surprised you thought I was biting the newbie when my messages are clearly laid out on his talk page and as you must have seen they started from level 1. Maybe you need to cut me some slack after all. And I don't think you can call this a legitimate and obvious content dispute when the IP kept deleting facts supported by inline citations and replacing them with uncited facts and calling my legitimate actions vandalism. This is the definition of vandalism. Dr.K.praxislogos 00:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
Although S.P.E.C.T.R.E. somewhat has a reputation for evilness, quite a coincidence wink wink..... Himalayan as far as I'm aware is still in his Himalayan monastic retreat readin up on the Kangyur, all 108 volumes. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Dr. Blofeld for the kind message. In no way I meant to cast doubt on the activities of your prestigious organisation. Please rest assured that I hold S.P.E.C.T.R.E. in the highest regard. I am reassured to know that the Himalayan Explorer is safe and well, although an independent verification of his status, say by the United Nations, would go a long way to allay the concerns of some others (but obviously not mine, since I don't have any). ;) Seriously now, I am very pleased to know that you have returned. The panache and mystique of Dr. Blofeld were sadly missing all this time from Wikipedia. Glad to see you back Dr. Blofeld and thanks for the honour of your visit here. Take care :) Dr.K.praxislogos 16:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I have declined your G10 speedy on this, as I think it unlikely these are real people, and in any case the content is not seriously defamatory. I think the page should go, unless the author can show that s/he is developing an article about a real, notable book, which would mean citing author, publisher, ISBN etc. I shall ask for those details, and !vote delete on the MfD, being prepared to change my mind if they are produced - unlikely as I find no trace of it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Of course if we had an ISBN and other such details about the book we wouldn't have to guess if the people are fictional or not. If we had an ISBN and other such data I would also !vote to keep. But under the circumstances I chose to err on the side of caution and proposed G10. Thank you for the courtesy of your message. Best. Dr.K.praxislogos 21:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Kapodistrias Museum
Hi Dr.K, is there a Kapodistrias museum in 120 Capodistriou Str. today or not? Considering the official sources I find, it is confusing. I have started a discussion hoping to clear all this out. Hoverfish Talk 23:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Hoverfish. You got me there. I haven't visited the museum so I can't say. But I know it is located in a village and I don't think it has moved. So I think the address must be correct. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 23:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Gunpei.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gunpei.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bility (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Image deletions
Hello Dr.K., you may be a bit disappointed after the chat we had the other day, but I have finally been voting "delete" on a large part of those Greek historical image deletions. I've long been an advocate of a fairly rigid application of the non-free content rules, and, while I sometimes tend to "close an eye" on a few cases of overuse in historical articles, in the sense of not initiating deletion on my own initiative, when such cases come up for debate I can hardly let them pass without applying the same strict criteria I apply elsewhere. I hope you'll understand my stance. As a piece of advice, I think what makes the position of you and the other keep voters a bit difficult to defend is the sheer number of images on some articles. I think it would be much easier to defend if they were reduced to a much smaller number of the most crucial ones. In order to limit the possible "losses", would you be willing to draw up something like a preference list of, say, the top one or two images for each article that you'd consider most indispensable?
(Unfortunately, unless this gets finally settled today, I may not be around for the rest of the process, as I'll be away on vacation without regular online access.)
Regards, and καλές γιορτές, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Future. I completely understand your points. I would consider the picture of Karamanlis arriving in Athens vital to the metapolitefsi article as well as the tank before the gates of Polytechneion. The picture of the three dictators is essential for the junta and metapolitefsi articles. The picture of the handshake of Konstantinos is essential for the junta article. Finally the picture of Georgakis on the cover of Grecia is vital for the Georgakis article. Thank you very much for this and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you. Take care und Frohe Weihnachten! Dr.K.πraxisλogos 16:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Ντροπή μου...
που δεν σε θυμήθηκα νωρίτερα, αλλά τρέχω συνέχεια και όποτε μπαίνω, συνήθως περιορίζομαι να ρίξω μια ματιά σε άρθρα που τυχόν μ' ενδιαφέρουν εκείνη τη στιγμή για τη δουλειά μου, χωρίς καν να κοιτάξω τι γίνεται γενικότερα. Αυτές τις μέρες έτυχε να μεταφράζω ένα κείμενο για τους συμβολιστές και έτσι έπεσα πάνω στο άρθρο για τον Moreas κι ύστερα στη σελίδα με τη συζήτηση κι ύστερα στους συντάκτες της κι ύστερα στις εν γένει σελίδες... κι ύστερα άφησα και μια ευχή στον ΦΠ χωρίς να κάνω τον κόπο να στείλω και τις θερμότερες υπερπόντιες ευχές μου στον πιο ευγενικό, ευπατρίδη και νηφάλιο συντάκτη του ευαγούς καθιδρύματος (καλό γαϊδούρι είμαι και του λόγου μου). Εύχομαι λοιπόν τα καλύτερα στον καλύτερο κι ελπίζω να κάτσει και να σου ευχηθώ κάποια στιγμή δια ζώσης και στα πάτρια εδάφη. Τα καθ' ημάς φαντάζομαι τα πληροφορείσαι επομένως δεν θα κάνω τον κόπο να σ'τα αραδιάσω. Σου εύχομαι ειλικρινά να είσαι πάντα καλά και να περάσεις τα καλύτερα Χριστούγεννά σου όπου κι αν βρίσκεσαι--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Μεταξύ μας δεν υπάρχει καμμία ντροπή. Κι' αν υπήρχε θα ήταν μοιρασμένη στη μέση, γιατί κι' εγώ πότε με το ένα πότε με το άλλο δεν κράτησα κάποια επαφή. Αλλά αυτό δεν σημαίνει ποτέ ότι δεν σε σκέφτομαι. Είσαι όχι μόνο φίλος αλλά και διακεκριμένος λόγιος και μεγάλος τεχνίτης του λόγου που ναι μεν πολλές φορές και λόγω των περιστάσεων, όπως πολλές φορές συμβαίνει σε όλους, δεν ερχόμαστε συχνά σε επαφή, αλλά δεν είναι δυνατόν να σε ξεχάσω. Έτσι με αυτό διευκρινισμένο, σου εύχομαι και πάλι Καλά Χριστούγεννα και ένα ευτυχισμένο Καινούργιο Χρόνο. Και ελπίζω πότε πότε να έρχεσαι και από δω να φωτίζεις με την παρουσία σου τα μέρη αυτά. Φιλιά. (Dr.K.πraxisλogos 01:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC))
Message
Dr. K., did you get my email?--Damac (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Karamanlis.jpg
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Happy Dr.K.'s Day!
 |
User:Dr.K. has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Congrats, Dr.K!! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- What can I say. This is simply awesome. It is a great honour indeed, especially coming from a such a distinguished Wikipedian. Thank you very much R. And to make it even better I get Kansas Bear, another awesome Wikipedian, to follow-up with such a nice comment. This could not get any better. In fact I think I just reached the pinnacle of my career here. Time to think of retirement, (just kidding!). Thanks again guys. Take care and all the best. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Dr.!
This latest BLP deletion drive is going to see quite a lot of deletions of articles that should be expanded I'm afraid.Its as if the articles have a reference suddenly they are going to be immune to violations... Dr. Blofeld White cat 07:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- It was my pleasure to help Dr. Blofeld. You are right of course, citations can go so far in providing some assurance of quality control but nothing is completely safe from vandalism. At least I've got these new BLPs on my watchlist now. I'll try my best to keep them safe. Nice seeing you again. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 07:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Dr.K.! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Zoe Laskari - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Own Images
You may want to know that you can get the images you uploaded ultra-speedy-deleted by tagging them with {{db-author}}. --Damiens.rf 19:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. I knew about the choice but I preferred to specify the exact reason. Thank you for the advice. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- You can do that nevertheless with the rationale parameter. --Damiens.rf 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Replaced image
As far as I know, there is no way to do this without renaming the image we have on Wikipedia. Since it's orphaned, I don't think anyone would mind if you were to move that image, and then the Commons one would show up when you linked that filename. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Quite right, I forgot that we can't rename images. I've deleted it, and the Commons image should now show through. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Dr. K, for the kind words.
I think you also are a decent person. I am happy for Wikipedia that you are an editor.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Abie. I really appreciate it. People like you make Wikipedia a brighter place. I am very pleased to have met you. Take care and I hope I will meet you again sometime. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia article contribution - horology and jewellery section
Dear Sir, Being both a watch enthusiast and expert I would like to contribute to the improvement of the articles regarding the world of horology and jewellery that at the moment contain insufficient and often erroneous information. I work together with CHSWISS SA in Switzerland (Swiss international watch archive www.chswiss.com) who appraise and certify watches and jewels for jewellery shops, auction houses and collectors all around the world. I have been in this line of work for more than twenty years and my experience and professionalism have, over time, allowed me to gather information and documentation in this sector. I am copyright holder of the texts and photos that I have created and that are published on several websites. I take this occasion to authorise the publication of these texts and photos on Wikipedia in accordance with the GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0 licences, of which I have read the legal text and accept the conditions thereof. Considering your experience, I wonder if you could elaborate on the accepted style of prose in an article published on Wikipedia, so that I might be able to follow the standards required by the website. I look forward to receiving your advice on the subject in order to further collaborate with you on the development of these articles.
Yours faithfully, Luca Grasso Watch Expert CHS SA GENEVE SWITZERLAND E-mail: geneve@chswiss.com
Wikipedia article contribution - horology and jewellery section
Dear Sir, Being both a watch enthusiast and expert I would like to contribute to the improvement of the articles regarding the world of horology and jewellery that at the moment contain insufficient and often erroneous information. I work together with CHSWISS SA in Switzerland (Swiss international watch archive www.chswiss.com) who appraise and certify watches and jewels for jewellery shops, auction houses and collectors all around the world. I have been in this line of work for more than twenty years and my experience and professionalism have, over time, allowed me to gather information and documentation in this sector. I am copyright holder of the texts and photos that I have created and that are published on several websites. I take this occasion to authorise the publication of these texts and photos on Wikipedia in accordance with the GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0 licences, of which I have read the legal text and accept the conditions thereof. Considering your experience, I wonder if you could elaborate on the accepted style of prose in an article published on Wikipedia, so that I might be able to follow the standards required by the website. I look forward to receiving your advice on the subject in order to further collaborate with you on the development of these articles.
Yours faithfully, Luca Grasso Watch Expert
CHS SA GENEVE SWITZERLAND E-mail: geneve@chswiss.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esperto Orologi (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Luca for your message. I would be glad to assist you in any way I can. Unfortunately I had to revert your recent contributions because they were rather subjective and used unencyclopedic language and ideas while the provided citation was a commercial website. Also many of the comments did not reflect what the commercial citation covered and they were not significant enough to be included in the article. Anyway maybe you can refer to some policies such as No original research, Verifiability and WP:CITE as well as the policy covering external links. If you would like to contribute verifiable historical facts and similar information we can discuss these on the talk page of the watch article. By the way, no need to post the same message twice on my talk page. Thanks and au revoir. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Fort Mason, Texas
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. GnoworTalk2Medid wha? 10:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please check your facts or your glasses or both. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure how to interpret your comment, but let me just explain process from start to finish. I came across this page as Huggle picked up a potential vandal edit to it (blanked the page). I took a look, and it was a legit edit, the page was redirecting to Fort Mason, CA. With the page blanked, there's no content so it qualified for speedy deletion. When I tagged it for speedy deletion, Huggle prompted me to notify the page creator, and I clicked yes (Hence the notice above). Not refuting that there is such a place, but a blank page is a blank page. Hope this clarifies how the situation occurred. Like I said above, not really sure what kind of response you were expecting.GnoworTalk2Medid wha? 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I do not recall ever creating this page, especially if it was just a blank as you say, therefore I automatically assume this is a mistake, mainly because I have never created blank pages which qualify for speedy deletion. Frankly I find this suggestion rather insulting. In addition the automated message you left on my talkpage includes a message advising me of minimum standards for creating short articles. Thank you very much but I do know the minimum standards and I don't need additional robotic hectoring, especially on my talkpage. I have informed the deleting admin and I expect him to shed light on this obvious mistake. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- On Aug 19, 2009 the article was created, and tagged by a Bot as a copyright violation. Dr K made the page a redirect to Fort Mason, which is not the correct location, as that's an article on a different community. On Feb 5, it was blanked. On Feb 6 it was CSD'd as a blank page, and I deleted it. Dr. K, because you were the last editor to make a substantial content change, you were the one that the system automatically notified of its impending deletion. Nothing harmful or bad. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Now I understand. Thank you very much. I should have checked the qualifier "Texas", I now know that this is an implausible redirect, given that the Fort is in California. I should have known better than mess with U.S. geography, even on such a small scale. Meanwhile I had forgotten that I ever created it. Thank you very much for the clarification BW. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies if it was in fact in error. As you correctly note, the message above is a template, but one that I intentionally placed on your page (since based on the information available, I believed you were the proper person to be notified). At the same time, I hope you don't think that it's purpose was to bully you. I did a quick Wikipedia search before tagging the page to see if there was an appropriate page to redirect it to. I couldn't find one. As such, the reason for the notice was to allow you (the page creator, most likely with more information on the article content than myself) to know that it was going to be deleted, and perhaps fix the redirect.GnoworTalk2Medid wha? 19:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Additionally, sorry for the delayed response. Was sleeping here in the Pacific time zone.GnoworTalk2Medid wha? 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, but no apology is needed for the delayed reply, we are all volunteers here therefore things get done when we have the time to do them. In addition, there was never a thought in my mind that you tried to bully me in any way. Rather I was alarmed by the speedy deletion nomination message insofar as it suggests that I created something that was deeemed to be speedy-deletable. My standards simply don't include this type of articles. I am absolutely certain that I never created such an article, let alone of a place that I never knew existed and, now that I checked through the Wikipedia search function, I think never existed. I also looked at the deletion history of the article and saw it was deleted again in August 2009 by a different admin. I have no clue what is going on here. I hope BWilkins can shed some light, since he is the admin who recently deleted it. Let's wait for his input. Thank you for your message in the meantime and my apologies if my initial reply sounded abrupt, but robotic-aided templates informing me of things I never contemplated of doing are not my usual cup of tea. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, you did not create it, you merely changed it to a redirect. It will not show up in your contributions for that date, as it's been deleted. Nothing to worry about, but I can confirm that you did that minor change - possibly you were monitoring copyvios that day? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying that BW. How could I have created such a monstrosity? And you are very informed and perceptive, as usual. Around that time, I recall, I was doing new page patrol and I saw this copyvio. My only mistake was I thought it was plausible as a redirect, instead of requesting a speedy for it. Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify this, if for nothing more than to suppress any additional robot-assisted visits, and associated automated hectoring, here. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, you did not create it, you merely changed it to a redirect. It will not show up in your contributions for that date, as it's been deleted. Nothing to worry about, but I can confirm that you did that minor change - possibly you were monitoring copyvios that day? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, but no apology is needed for the delayed reply, we are all volunteers here therefore things get done when we have the time to do them. In addition, there was never a thought in my mind that you tried to bully me in any way. Rather I was alarmed by the speedy deletion nomination message insofar as it suggests that I created something that was deeemed to be speedy-deletable. My standards simply don't include this type of articles. I am absolutely certain that I never created such an article, let alone of a place that I never knew existed and, now that I checked through the Wikipedia search function, I think never existed. I also looked at the deletion history of the article and saw it was deleted again in August 2009 by a different admin. I have no clue what is going on here. I hope BWilkins can shed some light, since he is the admin who recently deleted it. Let's wait for his input. Thank you for your message in the meantime and my apologies if my initial reply sounded abrupt, but robotic-aided templates informing me of things I never contemplated of doing are not my usual cup of tea. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- On Aug 19, 2009 the article was created, and tagged by a Bot as a copyright violation. Dr K made the page a redirect to Fort Mason, which is not the correct location, as that's an article on a different community. On Feb 5, it was blanked. On Feb 6 it was CSD'd as a blank page, and I deleted it. Dr. K, because you were the last editor to make a substantial content change, you were the one that the system automatically notified of its impending deletion. Nothing harmful or bad. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I do not recall ever creating this page, especially if it was just a blank as you say, therefore I automatically assume this is a mistake, mainly because I have never created blank pages which qualify for speedy deletion. Frankly I find this suggestion rather insulting. In addition the automated message you left on my talkpage includes a message advising me of minimum standards for creating short articles. Thank you very much but I do know the minimum standards and I don't need additional robotic hectoring, especially on my talkpage. I have informed the deleting admin and I expect him to shed light on this obvious mistake. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure how to interpret your comment, but let me just explain process from start to finish. I came across this page as Huggle picked up a potential vandal edit to it (blanked the page). I took a look, and it was a legit edit, the page was redirecting to Fort Mason, CA. With the page blanked, there's no content so it qualified for speedy deletion. When I tagged it for speedy deletion, Huggle prompted me to notify the page creator, and I clicked yes (Hence the notice above). Not refuting that there is such a place, but a blank page is a blank page. Hope this clarifies how the situation occurred. Like I said above, not really sure what kind of response you were expecting.GnoworTalk2Medid wha? 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Notification of proposed topic/interaction ban on Tbsdy
See here for the proposal. Based on some recent interaction you may have had with the user(s) I thought you might want to know. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 23:55, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Equazcion. Too bad it had to come to that. I will check it out. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK for William Mudford
|
|
On February 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Mudford, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
DYK for The Iron Shroud
|
|
On February 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Iron Shroud, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
- Many thanks Ucucha for the visit here and your kind notifications. It was a pleasure meeting you. Also thanks for your prior assistance. All the best. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar!
|
The Socratic Barnstar | |
| For [[5]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
- This is a beautiful barnstar. I didn't even know it existed. Thank you very much for the honour. Take care Hell in a Bucket. It was a pleasure meeting you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Your signature
Hello Dr.K. Your signature contains a css element that is causing a serious problem with the bot that archives talk pages, MiszaBot. The bot was trying to archive a section of ANI, but was prevented from doing so by your signature [6], which then caused the bot to be reported to WP:AIV [7]. Because of this, we'll need for you to remove the absolute positioning code to prevent this issue in the future. Thanks. —DoRD (?) (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I understand. The dislike is mutual. I mean between me and the robots in general. I'll remove the code. Could you also possibly try to remove the robot? Thank you for the notification. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, but this particular bot performs an extremely valuable service, so... But thanks for your understanding! —DoRD (?) (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't doubt. I never saw a robot I didn't like. Until it malfunctioned, of course and then ate Asimov's Laws of Robotics for lunch. I just hope MiszaBot doesn't watch the Terminator Series of Movies in its spare time. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the absolute positioning code. Please let MiszaBot know ;) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, one of my favorite works of fiction. If all robots, or humans for that matter, could follow those rules... Thanks again! —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Don't mention it, it was my pleasure. As far as "I Robot", I agree completely. It is a classic series and one of my favourites as well. Going back to local matters, in the incident you just reported to me, one robot (Mr.Z-bot) reported another (MiszaBot) as a vandal. There is hope yet for humankind! Thanks for this piece of amazing news. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, one of my favorite works of fiction. If all robots, or humans for that matter, could follow those rules... Thanks again! —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, but this particular bot performs an extremely valuable service, so... But thanks for your understanding! —DoRD (?) (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
I sent a message to David Tombe here, but it's really to you all. Thank you for your support, not because I give a rip about being punished by a bunch of bottom-feeding wannabe politicians, but because you all see and recognize something that was totally wrong and against the spirit of Wikipedia, and you rose up and stated such long before I even thought about it. Trusilver 18:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is an honour to have known you Trusilver and thank you for the courtesy of your visit here. I will always remember the gratitude I felt when at last someone from the system understood the arguments I (and many others) put forward and finally acted to correct this injustice instead of treating us like powerless saps. It shouldn't be this way. But it is. Arbcom decisions are interpreted in the most strict, AGF-less, bureaucray-full way possible. What would take a few hours, in the younger days of this wiki, and be resolved through common sense, now takes full-blown Arbcom cases and walls of text full of recrimination. Admins, are afraid to act and sit on the sidelines like the rest of the hapless, helpless, powerless audience. But you acted. In the name of decency and logic, thank you for that and then some. I am normally not involved in internal wiki-politics but persecution gets to me, so I had to respond. You made an observation that Arbcom decisions should be scrutinised because they are made under convoluted circumstances and that blocks due to Arbcom decisions must be clear and obvious. These statements are as true and powerful as they are inspiring and they are worthy of a U.S. Supreme Court justice. The latter statement about blocks being clear and obvious is exactly what I meant when I said that the bureaucrats have a way of creating shibboleths, obvious to only the initiated and completely opaque to common mortals, to separate the thinking of the average editor from that of the elite and perpetuate the mystique of strict discipline. This state of affairs is simply unacceptable. I am grateful that I have met you and even more that I was exposed to your clear, practical and lucid thinking. We need less Arbcom, not more in our daily lives. It is a pity that the one thinker who inspired me to think about the boring for me subject of Arbcom is currently prosecuted in front of Arbcom and he is not sitting among them. This is a great loss for the project and for common sense and it is filled with irony. For the sake of this project I hope that your ideas will one day become required reading for any Arbcom-wannabe. But don't be worried. You are in great company. Galileo was also prosecuted for his heretic thinking and we all know what happened next. Thank you ever so much and take care of yourself. It has been a privilege knowing you. (Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
Cassevetes
Yes sir Mr Dr K sir —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yinzland (talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- No Yinzland, we are not in bootcamp, so no need for formalities of this type. Excellent job on the table. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know your thoughts on this
I'd like to know your thoughts on the response I posted with this edit; I'm guessing you lost it in the shuffle between yourself and Coffee. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 14:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Congrats
|
Japanese Barnstar of National Merit | |
| Awarded to Dr.K for his remarkable contributions to Japanese linguistics. You are obviously a person of multiple talents! Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC) |
- You are very welcome Dr.K, and thank you so much for your contributions to Wikipedia! Best regards! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Big Axe's contributions
Hello Tassos! Indeed long time no see, and I hope you're doing well. As for the check you requested, his edits do not appear to be vandalism (at least not in the Greece-related articles), quite the contrary: he is probably using the List of Prime Ministers of Greece as a source and making the corresponding changes. The numbers of succession for instance were changed across a number of articles by Ouranokatevatos (talk · contribs) who apparently prefers to number the distinct people who held an office instead of the number of the term (in other words, Kostas Karamanlis is the 91st person to be PM, but the head of the 181st cabinet per the list). Personally, I tend to agree with Big Axe's viewpoint and have myself reverted some of these changes. In any case, the edits are entirely legitimate as far as I can tell. Best regards and take care, Constantine ✍ 13:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Kostas. I'm glad you are well. Here everything is fine as well. The above user changed the numbers of succession without providing any edit summaries. I thought there was only one succession order number but I wasn't entirely sure because some of his other edits appeared legit. The user never talked to me about the warnings I left on their talkpage to let me know about this detail as you describe either. No one I asked at AN/I or elsewhere replied to me so thank you for being the first to respond with a viable explanation. I will remove the warnings from Big Axe's user page. Thanks and all the best. 14:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Mario Pergolini's and Alejandro Bustillo's biographies
Dear Dr. K.
I'm writing this message to inform you that the sources and information you deleted about Mario Pergolini, a famous entertainer in my country Argentina (whose existence quite probably you don't know for natural reasons of big geographic distance and culture) are the most reliable and are based on a biography that has been done after some deep investigation about the person in question.
Now you left the information sourced on Clarin, a site of the same nature (and less reliable as it contains wrong information).
Unfortunately, clearing the data I've added, now you left some poor information about Pergolini.
The same happened with Alejandro Bustillo, whose biography now is poorer. And maybe you don't know him but he is a renowned architect in my country. The information added was rich in information and the source was as reliable as the one you left but arbitrarily deleted (I say arbitrarily because I assume you don't know him for the same reasons you don't know Mario Pergolini). Now I wonder why you left the other source when it is from a forum (written by forumers) whose best articles are converted into articles, but they are nothing but threads, written by people (as everything in this world).
I'd like to ask you to read please about Mario Pergolini in different websites (including watching youtube videos), getting some information about him (most of it is in Spanish though). And since you are a professional distinguished member of wikipedia I believe you are going to do so. And once you know enough about Pergolini you will be able to take more appropriate decisions about the subject in question. About Alejandro Bustillo, there are lots of books about his architectural works you can purchase in Amazon or Ebay, due to your interest in both of them and taking the decision of clearing that information I believe you'll buy the books about Bustillo, as well as take the time to learn more about Pergolini.
Sourcing from mobygames, primiciasya, youbioit, lanacion, imdb, etc. (some of the sites I source my info from due to their reliability) is the same; as all of them are edited by persons (is there anything in the world that is not?), the articles in all of them are investigated by mods, all of them require you to register; so I don't understand why you arbitrarily consider one source of info reliable and the not the other when both are of the same nature; especially when you don't know anything (I assume so) about the subjects in question.
I hope you reconsider all the above.
Thank you for your time and best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthstudent (talk • contribs) 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Truthstudent for your kind note. I think you took my actions wrong. When I noticed that you added information from Youbioit.com I simply reacted to that and I removed it because as I explained on your talk such a source obviously fails WP:RS and WP:BLP criteria. By removing your source I did not in any way imply that any other sources in these articles are ok. I simply did not have the time or the interest to clean them up further. That's why I added a bio tag on the Pergolini article, so that others may, in time, clean them up more thoroughly. In fact I thought that the articles should have most of the information removed because almost none of the facts present in the articles were from reliable sources. I quite agree with you that blogs are not reliable sources so you can remove these blogs yourself if you like; I will not object to that in the least. But please do understand that information from youbioit.com is not reliable because it does not come from reliable sources and cannot be verified. If you would like please ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. They will explain to you why in more detail. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- And I would like to further clarify that even though you mentioned in your message "...are the most reliable and are based on a biography that has been done after some deep investigation about the person in question." sorry but in Wikipedia we cannot take your word for it. Unless you provide book titles, ISBN numbers, page numbers and citations based on reliable sources this information, no matter how well meaning does not satisfy our criteria for inclusion. I hope this helps a bit more. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
YOu Arbcom Motion comments.
The reason the actions are so drastic is that Jimbo himself asked fr a review into Brews case and enforcement. That's probably a big part of this, they see their power as being usurped. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting point. If it were me I would have interpreted such intervention by Jimmy as a sign to take it easy rather than clamp down more. But that's me. Dr.K. λogosπraxis
Hi (continuing discussion from RfArb/Motions)
Hi Dr. K. Just wanted to touch base. I respectfully disagree with my fellow arbitrator that this was "benign". Instead, it points further to the battleground nature that Brews ohare (and candidly, several of those advocating for him) have brought to this dispute. There had been previous attempts to work out terms that the sanctions would be removed, and instead Brews attempted to litigate that the sanctions were never in force, that he was being persecuted, etcetera. He was even warned that what he was doing was a violation, but continued on anyway
I believe that Brews ohare can be a good editor of articles, but the fact that he has spent all his time writing screeds and fighting this fight over and over and over again makes me concerned that he can not let this go. I'm hopeful that these sanctions will allow him to show over the 90 day period that he can be a good editor once more, and then ease him back into the area he's had problems with. SirFozzie (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much SirFozzie for your clarification and your visit here. I fully respect your position and I can see your frustration with some of the arguments used by Brews and others. I was simply disagreeing with the absolute requirement that Brews unilaterally drop the stick as well as the indefinite duration of the advocacy ban. My suggestion was that where there is honest disagreement among reasonable people as to the punishment deserved for a given infraction, one cannot in an absolute sense, demand that all activity in defence of the accused stop, especially when it involves the accused defending himself. Having said that I would also urge everyone to drop their sticks, and I'm sure you realise that unfortunately many people are wielding them in this case, and get back to building this great Encyclopaedia. The sooner the better. I also hold the belief that this goal can be better achieved if the motions under consideration were modified to accomodate the concerns raised by CHL, Knight Lago and others. In this case, I firmly believe, a sense of unity and understanding fostered by a spirit of compromise, starting from among the Arbcom members, will go a long way toward healing the divisions that this case has engendered. Thank you again for your positive engagement here. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your conciliatory remarks, Dr. K. I have no pleasure in sterile ArbCom disputes, and would be happy to return to the work on the encyclopedia, which was my only interest until Case: Speed of light. That case introduced me to administrators and arbitration, something I did not find at all productive. I felt because of that engagement that I could suggest some changes to such proceedings that could make them work more smoothly. The bulk of this rumination is contained in several essays linked on my Talk page. This subject is not in the realm of article creation, but nonetheless seems to me potentially useful. Unfortunately, it is seen quite differently by Headbomb and others, who find it an act of aggression. Such a reaction baffles me.
- Apart from this interest, I have occupied myself with article contributions and creation, without much controversy. The several blocks I have been subject to can be traced back to pretty silly matters: the first, by Xavexgoem, was replacement of a url in a citation (on Speed of light) that was inadvertently deleted by another author. A second, by MBisanz, was for mentioning the words "Speed of light" to refer to an example of a Talk page where dispute had arisen (that mention was take to be a "physics related topic"), a third, by Sandstein (overturned by Trusilver, who then was desysopped), was the general remark to two authors on an Edit Warring page that they should cooperate on their introduction to the article they were working on (which happened to be a physics article), and the last one, by Ucucha, was for suggesting the wording of the ruling against Trusilver was too confrontive (technically a namespace violation). Obviously, none of these was a hill of beans. However, SirFossie has not cut me any slack here, and feels these blocks are clear evidence of my non-cooperation and a perverse desire to continually battle the speed of light sanctions. I don't understand that either. Brews ohare (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Brews for your comments. I can see where you are coming from as well. I also disagree with some of Sir Fozzzie's positions but I respect his right to have them. I also respect that he modified the advocacy motion to address concerns raised. I think that through mutual respect and a spirit of understanding of each other's positions we can eventually reach some acceptable outcome out of this process and, to use more technical terms, I hope we can align our individual frames of reference so that we can all understand each other better. I just hope with this latest round of motions, this stage of events will eventually lead to some resolution of the whole issue where at least we can all agree that a) the sticks have been dropped from all sides (as hoped for by all sides) and b) we can get on to more productive concerns in the fields of our interest. I think that everyone hopes and agrees that this is a desirable goal and a common direction. I sincerely believe and hope that this much can be attained despite the bitter history of this conflict. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Amen. Brews ohare (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Brews for your comments. I can see where you are coming from as well. I also disagree with some of Sir Fozzzie's positions but I respect his right to have them. I also respect that he modified the advocacy motion to address concerns raised. I think that through mutual respect and a spirit of understanding of each other's positions we can eventually reach some acceptable outcome out of this process and, to use more technical terms, I hope we can align our individual frames of reference so that we can all understand each other better. I just hope with this latest round of motions, this stage of events will eventually lead to some resolution of the whole issue where at least we can all agree that a) the sticks have been dropped from all sides (as hoped for by all sides) and b) we can get on to more productive concerns in the fields of our interest. I think that everyone hopes and agrees that this is a desirable goal and a common direction. I sincerely believe and hope that this much can be attained despite the bitter history of this conflict. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Apart from this interest, I have occupied myself with article contributions and creation, without much controversy. The several blocks I have been subject to can be traced back to pretty silly matters: the first, by Xavexgoem, was replacement of a url in a citation (on Speed of light) that was inadvertently deleted by another author. A second, by MBisanz, was for mentioning the words "Speed of light" to refer to an example of a Talk page where dispute had arisen (that mention was take to be a "physics related topic"), a third, by Sandstein (overturned by Trusilver, who then was desysopped), was the general remark to two authors on an Edit Warring page that they should cooperate on their introduction to the article they were working on (which happened to be a physics article), and the last one, by Ucucha, was for suggesting the wording of the ruling against Trusilver was too confrontive (technically a namespace violation). Obviously, none of these was a hill of beans. However, SirFossie has not cut me any slack here, and feels these blocks are clear evidence of my non-cooperation and a perverse desire to continually battle the speed of light sanctions. I don't understand that either. Brews ohare (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Great work, thank you!
|
The Half Barnstar | |
| For working with those you disagree with to create a finished product in the Jesse Ventura article, that is finer than either of you could have created alone, Presented by Rapier1 (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC) |
- I am honoured Rapier1. Thank you very much for this wonderful Barnstar. Very kind of you. It was a great experience for me working with these great, knowledgeable and extremely civil Wikipedians. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Dr. K: Thank you for your words of support in the recent suit by Physchim62. This matter was closed with no action taken. In particular, Physchim62 was not chastised for appropriating ArbCom as an instrument of harassment, nor for attributing false statements to me and refusing to apologize or retract them. Brews ohare (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are very welcome Brews. It was the least I could do. Even though one of my statements was that I was speechless. I never (or almost never) declare that I am speechless about an issue. But sometimes the sheer audacity of the actions speaks for itself. Words add really nothing of value in such cases. This was one such case. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Dr.K. Given that there was no further input at the deletion debate, I think you should feel free to merge whatever sourced non-promotional information is appropriate into Hong Kong Dragon Garden. Then redirect the article, citing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Garden Charitable Trust. I'll leave it up to your discretion. Cheers. — CactusWriter | needles 00:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much CactusWriter for your advice and for taking the time to inform me. It is very nice of you and I appreciate it. I will take the steps you specified. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Cyprus Dispute: Greeks vs Turks or Greece vs Turkey?
I almost reverted your reversion of my edit, but then realised that your concept of the dispute and its description is rooted in the mists of time rather than my own perception which is based on history of Cyprus from 1974 onwards.
So I am letting it stand - albeit until I have further ideas on the subject.
JJ
ἐχθρὸν δέ μοί ἐστιν αὖτις ἀριζήλως εἰρημένα μυθολογεύειν —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.63.224 (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- τί τοι τάδε μυθολογεύω; ἤδη γάρ τοι χθιζὸς ἐμυθεόμην. Thanks for the message. My motivation in this is not exactly based on any ideas that I have about the dispute originating in the mists of time, as you so poetically put it, but rather on a belief that most international conflicts are between states and not people. It would be best, however, if any of our viewpoints could be supported by a citation. This way we could address verifiability better. Thank you for the Homeric excerpt. On this we both agree. I too hate repeating the same points again, even if they are not as illustrious as the tales of the Odyssey :) Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Greek Genocide
Hi, I have noticed that you reverted my edits in this article on the grounds that there should be a consensus for adding them. Yet, i suppose in order for a consensus to be reached for any sort of disputes there should be a discussion first. If you check the discussion page of this article, you will notice that users who insistently revert the article, unfortenetely that includes you as well, have no desire to discuss anything as they without providing any reasons keep deleting the sourced content. And again I suppose 3-4 persons can not act like they own any article and do what they want with it, deleting other people`s contribution without any legitiminate argument. Thanks.--85.100.192.94 (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I saw that you were edit-warring with various other editors without too much (if any) discussion. The article was protected as a result. If you could discuss these changes with the other editors on the article's talkpage maybe this can be resolved. From what I saw I think that you put too much weight (WP:UNDUE) on the dissenting opinions and that upset the balance of the section. But I think that this discussion does not belong in my talkpage but in the article's talk. Best regards. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Mechanic007
You're rubbing salt in the wound. I've blocked him for 24 hours. Let him be. If he wants to edit constructively, he will when the block expires, but warning someone who is already blocked is not helpful. I'm watching his talk page and I have the ability to revoke his ability to edit it if he abuses it, so may I politely suggest you leave him alone. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice, even though I disagree that I rub salt in any of his wounds by warning him about attacking me in his edit summaries because I firmly believe that one should not dispense with civility just because one is blocked. Using edit summaries as a weapon to attack me I think gives me the right to defend myself by warning him. However I will heed the rest of your advice and get as far away from this person as I realistically can. Believe me I avoid these kind of characters as much as I can and I really need no advice to such an effect. Let's hope he does not return with a vengeance after his unblock. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well the warning templates say something along the lines of "if you do this again you will be blocked" which is kind of redundant since he's already blocked. If he continues to abuse his talk page, I only have to press a couple of buttons to take it off him. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are so right about the template. You just caught me there overly relying on my robotic tools :) I will be more careful in the future because these convenient tools can destroy the finer nuances of a message and introduce such logical inconsistencies. Thank you very much and thank you for your reassurance. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Another admin has taken his talk page off him. If he continues to be a pain in the arse after the block expires, let me know and I'll make the next one permanent. You just keep your head down and ignore him as much as possible- if I don;t get to the block button in time, somebody else probably will so it's not worth getting het up about. Hopefully he'll start editing constructively anyway! All the best to you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are so right about the template. You just caught me there overly relying on my robotic tools :) I will be more careful in the future because these convenient tools can destroy the finer nuances of a message and introduce such logical inconsistencies. Thank you very much and thank you for your reassurance. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well the warning templates say something along the lines of "if you do this again you will be blocked" which is kind of redundant since he's already blocked. If he continues to abuse his talk page, I only have to press a couple of buttons to take it off him. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Paphos
Thank you for "Paphos" I misspelled it in the translation, then I could not figure out what city it was. Thanks again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Richard for your kind message. I am very pleased to have been of help, although inadvertently. I saw the Google translation as well; it was misspelled there as well as in the original article. It was not your fault. Take care and all the best. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ilknur at Northern Cyprus
According to this evidence, Ilknur appears to be a possible sock puppet of the banned User:Justice Forever. --Taivo (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good work Taivo. Thank you very much for the courtesy. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Alice Nunn
| On May 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alice Nunn, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
barack obama
i am not in a war...someone is with me. this material is recent news and written as reported in the trial. it is neutral facts and the writers of the page are not impartial. they write from their POV AND WILL CONTINUE TO DELETE ANY MATERIAL WHICH DOES NOT ALLIGN WITH THEIR MINDSET. COULD VERY WELL BE POLITICAL HACKS. THAT SIR, IS A HYPOCRIT AND A BRAIN DEAD INDIVIDUAL, A WRITER WHO IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE. SO BLOCK THEM FOR THEIR BIAS.
Furtive admirer (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Furtive admirer. I am not aware of the conflict or the individual(s) you are talking about. However from the tone of your message I can see that you may have to calm down so that you can edit more productively and with less conflict. Commenting on other editors is also never a good idea and it is covered under WP:NPA. By the way I don't have the ability to block because I am not an admin. So, just take it easy for a while and then you may wish to return and try to contribute under more collegial circumstances. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 12:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that the editor in question, Furtive admirer, is now indefinitely blocked from further editing here.[8] - Wikidemon (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Parenti Hoax
Hello Dr K,
As the reporting party for the Uwa Sonnet and Simon Kronberg UAA, and the (not) so well known Parenti hoax,
I offer congratulations and thanks for your swift action. 
You will probably be interested in these 'apparently related' accounts:
- User:Sweden A, √
- User:ArsenalTemplate √ and
- User:TemplateSweden08 √
User:Arsenal:User- already 'doctored'
- User:Sweden A, √
Regards, --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much 220.101.28.25 for your kind comments but most of the credit belongs to you. Had I not seen your meticulous UAA report I would not have remembered the past hoax case. Thank you for the additional information. I guess we have some more CSDs or MFDs coming up. Thanks again and take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! (I want a raise! ). It's only very recently that I have started "New User Patrol" at wp:User creation log, which is how I found this 'conspiracy'. I recognised the name Ewa Sonnet,(Hm?) had a look at her 'husbands' User Page (WTF?), tagged 'em, reported 'em and started sniffing around looking for 'smelly socks'. Followed an edit history link to 'Parenti', with the similarity in the birthdate, birthnames, birthplace, height?; (Wha?) well my suspcions were aroused shall we say! I googled 'Parentis' name, & got "Deletionpedia"! Never heard of Deletionpedia!, but that led me to the AfD link and the certainty that the smell was real! And thats about it! And the hoax was well before my Wiki time! I'll have to look into CsD, MfD as I have no experience there, only voted in 1 or 2 Afd AFAIK. See you round, Doc. K! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! (I want a raise!
- Hi 220.101.28.25. Thank you for the details. Very well done. The hoax you uncovered with all the socks and the subpages was a much more elaborate version of a past hoax, I don't recall the exact time, when a very similar hoax userpage was making the same claims, except if I recall correctly, they were claiming they were a famous "tennis player". The rest of the claims were very similar right down to the WP:BLP violating claim about the fiancee. This time the scale of the hoax was much larger, including fake soccer templates in userspace, but your great investigating skills uncovered the whole web of lies. Glad to have been of help. Take care and see you around. It was very nice meeting you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: User:Arsenal:User
Hello Dr.K., and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Arsenal:User, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Copies of articles in the main space are not a speedy deletion criterion; nor is this applicable under G3. MFD is already open; wait until the conclusion of the SPI. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Blurpeace 22:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is not as simple as that. It is an inevitable misunderstanding on your part because it is a subtle point. This is not just any copy of an article in mainspace. If you check the players of the "Arsenal" soccer team you will see the name of the hoax soccer player "Simon Kronberg", that's where the hoax is. So, in conclusion: The article seems like a genuine copy but it is a copy which within it contains a hoax. Therefore I tagged it as a hoax, since every other sock associated with it was used by the sockmaster to perpetrate the hoax that "Simon Kronberg" is a legitimate soccer player. You might still disagree with me on my tagging the whole article as a hoax instead of that Kronberg entry. But I think that when an article contains a hoax fact within it and it is used to perpetrate a hoax, then it should be taggable as a hoax. However the boilerplate messages about me familiarising with speedy deletion criteria are not needed. Just check my record of speedy deletions. It speaks for itself. However the mere fact that I have to get these lectures even after I succesfully tagged hundreds of articles for deletion demonstrates why I am not active in new page patrolling these days. And the only reason I got involved in this case was to help the excellent effort of user:220.101.28.25 after I saw their report at UAA and I just wanted to share my past experience, on a similar case, with them. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Now all socks have been indefed by MuZemike per SPI result. For more background into this perennial hoax see also the deleted mainspace hoax article Angelo Parenti from 2008 which was also protected from recreation. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. According to the 2008 AfD of Angelo Parenti the Angelo Parenti hoax had him appear as a cyclist. Now, in 2010, Parenti has become a famous soccer player with Arsenal. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Georgios Kintis
I see your point about listing failed business deals. All I did was cut and paste an entry that was on the "RFC Paris" article that was relevant because the [Georgios Kintis] article was very skimpy. It was a very high profile failed business deal and it linked the Kintis page to the RFC Paris page. The colours of the football team are blue and white too. It seemed like an interesting detail. Whatever you decide is fine with me. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Nipsonanomhmata. Sorry about that. I didn't know about the background of the deal. I guess if it was such a high profile deal, even if a failed one, we might as well include it. Please do the honours and feel free to re-add it. Keep up the good work. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- ty Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 05:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- And again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You?
I was not talking to you, you are veryt welcome! Giacomo 18:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Giano. No need for the clarification. I'm afraid the smileys I put in my message did not clarify that I made the remark in jest. Rest assured I never had any doubt about your hospitality. Thank you very much for your gracious visit here. Take care and you will always be most welcome in my talkpage, as I know I'm in yours. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
"blanking"
Re: this edit summary. If you think the source is reliable, and has a place in the article, that's one thing, but please don't refer to my good faith edit (which was accompanied by a descriptive edit summary) as "blanking." The term "blanking" is commonly understood on WP to refer to a type of vandalism, which my edit clearly was not. Calling such an edit blanking is essentially calling it vandalism, and unfounded accusations of vandalism are frowned upon, per WP:CIVIL, WP:ASG, etc. Thanks. Yilloslime TC 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah sure. Just throw the regulation book at me. Anything but WP:AGF. Do you want to hear my side of the story? Here it is: The AfD tag on the article says: "...The article must not be blanked..." while the AfD is going on. So I used the terminology of the tag so as to avoid an edit war, just in case you disputed or misunderstood my edit. Deleting information while an AfD is going on is not a good idea because editors cannot evaluate all the aspects of an article. So I just used the terminology of the tag hoping that you would get my message and not edit-war. That's all. Do you seriously think that I would call any established editor a vandal? Especially by sneakily using the verb "blank"? Where is the AGF in this? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Did I blank the article? No. Was any content removed? No. So don't refer to my edit as blanking. I removed a non-reliable source as explained in my edit summary. That's standard article improvement, and an ongoing AfD does not such editing. Not to mention that source also happened to be totally superfluous as that facts it was supporting were already supported by unambiguously reliable sources. Yilloslime TC 23:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that you have not read my edit summary carefully. To assist you I will give you the diff here along with my edit summary: Current revision as of 18:36, 1 June 2010 (edit) (undo)Dr.K. (talk | contribs)m (Undid revision 365521491 by Yilloslime (talk) Please do not blank info while Afd goes on) See, my edit summary says "please do not blank info", no mention of blanking the article as you claim. Second "info" can mean any info, including a citation. Happier now? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Also it is not up to you to decide what is a reliable source or not. That's why we have the AfD. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is the last I'm going to say about this: You could have said in your edit summary, "Revert. I think this is a reliable source," or "Let's leave this source in for now, while the issue is being discussed," but instead you chose to refer my edit as a form of vandalism. If you can't see why that might the ruffles of any established editor, then I don't know what to say. Yilloslime TC 23:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Coulda, woulda, shoulda and Monday morning quarterbacking aside, I think you are overly fixated with the meaning of the verb "to blank" and its association with vandalism, which I clearly do not share. As it seems neither I nor you are going to see eye to eye on this, so let's just agree to disagree. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is the last I'm going to say about this: You could have said in your edit summary, "Revert. I think this is a reliable source," or "Let's leave this source in for now, while the issue is being discussed," but instead you chose to refer my edit as a form of vandalism. If you can't see why that might the ruffles of any established editor, then I don't know what to say. Yilloslime TC 23:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Did I blank the article? No. Was any content removed? No. So don't refer to my edit as blanking. I removed a non-reliable source as explained in my edit summary. That's standard article improvement, and an ongoing AfD does not such editing. Not to mention that source also happened to be totally superfluous as that facts it was supporting were already supported by unambiguously reliable sources. Yilloslime TC 23:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for that. I was just about to fix it when you beat me to it ;) -FASTILY (TALK) 05:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem Fastily. It happens to the best of us. Take care :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks !
|
Civility Award | |
| For the excellent way you dealt with my good faith, but awkward deletion nomination. Claritas § 07:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much Claritas. I am honoured by your very kind gesture but your response was as nice and considerate as mine. I simply reflected back in my comments your collegial and generous spirit, so you too deserve an award. It was a real pleasure meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 12:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Foxconn
Hi,
I actually removed some "personal analysis" within the Foxconn article. The media is gossiping about "huge amounts of suicides" there, but basic statistics tell otherwise.
The only thing I did, is correcting the gossips on the page with general accepted statistics and numbers. Like I put in the article, the average number of suicides in China per 100.000 people is WAY above the number of suicides at Foxconn.
Why would an encyclopedia like wikipedia follow such media-hypes, instead of publishing actual numbers, facts and science?
Shall I remove the total part about suicides from the article, as not relevant? Knowing that the current information on that page is incorrect...
Kind Regards,
Jeroen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroen84 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I gave you the reasons of my reversions on my message on your talk. please check WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You are also not allowed to use Wikipedia articles as reference and use your own analysis to prove the rates involved. You must find another reliable source which does the analysis and then include it in the article. Please see WP:RS. Also next time go to the talkpage of the Foxconn article to discuss these matters so others may see our conversation and offer their opinions. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- And no, you cannot remove the information in the article because even though you think it is incorrect, it is covered by reliable citations. Removing cited information is considered vandalism. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Foxconn
(Dont know how to follow up on discussion page..).
I already added the reason for my edit on the discussion page of foxconn...
The sources now mentioned are reliable for the numbers they gave (10 deaths/12 attempts). But they give their opinion: Its a lot.
But in fact its not, the factory has 450.000 employees, 10 is below normal. So when I take the sources mentioned on the other wikipages, I can add the correct information again? Please note that the current information is incorrect, as it gives an opinion which is not only something that can be discussed, the simple facts also tell different... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroen84 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- No you cannot for the reasons I told you. If you don't believe me ask another user or an administrator, and please don't discuss this here again. Please go to the article talkpage. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
AN
I rollbacked this edit of yours [9] - one of that thread is enough! DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was during an edit conflict and it was inadvertent. However using rollback against established editors is insulting and unnecessary. Obviously I expect an explanation for such treatment. Also you removed my !vote. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I had already restored your comment before you posted that response. The software is so poor at coping with edit conflicts that without using rollback one is likely to run into several further edit conflicts while trying to fix the original one. I am sorry and promise never to fix any pages you bugger up in the future. DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Duncan, sorry if I sounded harsh, it's just a pet-peeve of mine. I fully accept your technical details and the rationale of using rollback. In fact to show you how sorry I am, I give you blanket approval to use rollback against any edit of mine in the future. I don't know how I screwed this up (an edit conflict software problem?) but if you check my contribs this has happened very rarely if ever. Anyway no harm done and please accept my apologies once more. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, very decent of you - and I'm sorry that I sounded so snarky just above! I certainly don't intend to go around rollbacking you. ECs on AN and ANI are one of my pet peeves (there was a very difficult series of them a couple of years ago, which took me ages to sort out in the pre-rollback days). I could have explained better what I was doing when I came here to tell you about the rollback, so please accept my apologies for not doing so. DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Duncan, sorry if I sounded harsh, it's just a pet-peeve of mine. I fully accept your technical details and the rationale of using rollback. In fact to show you how sorry I am, I give you blanket approval to use rollback against any edit of mine in the future. I don't know how I screwed this up (an edit conflict software problem?) but if you check my contribs this has happened very rarely if ever. Anyway no harm done and please accept my apologies once more. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I had already restored your comment before you posted that response. The software is so poor at coping with edit conflicts that without using rollback one is likely to run into several further edit conflicts while trying to fix the original one. I am sorry and promise never to fix any pages you bugger up in the future. DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
be careful
You copied the whole thread and lost a comment too (it's been reverted already). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was an edit conflict. I don't know how it happened. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I even transcluded the edit conflict template in my !vote. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- What happened is not a worry, nor is the rollback by DH. Please be aware that Nev's comment, which had been made 4 edits before yours, wasn't in your copied version, so it most likely wasn't lost in an EC. When I get ECs, I always copy (into the clipboard) what I wanted to post, then back up and start all over again. I've found that trying to navigate forward through an edit conflict seldom has the wanted outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- The instructions on the edit conflict screen are downright wrong and disruptive, no-one should follow them. One should always do as Gwen suggests. EC's do remove all sorts of comments from all over the place. WMF would rather spend its money on shiny new skins that don't work, than on software capable of coping with busy discussions. Ages ago we were promised "liquid threads", which would, or so we were told, solve the edit conflict problem. They've been "just around the corner" for years. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's even more buggy on way high traffic pages with unbelievably sprawling edit histories like AN and ANI. Dr K, nobody thought you meant to do anything untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I understand Gwen, and thanks for your comment. But the section heading referred to me being careful, even though I believe it may have been a software prob. Anyway out of all this I am most upset that I spoke strongly to Duncan, who, in my opinion, is a great editor, because I did not realise it was a technical revert. Thanks to both of you anyway and thanks for visiting my talkpage. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem - and thank you for the kind words about my editing, it is truly appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is the truth. I have seen you around and I am always impressed by your arguments. I simply never had the chance to tell you. I guess the ancient Greeks knew something when they said that there is no bad situation without something good coming out of it (loose translation of course!). Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem - and thank you for the kind words about my editing, it is truly appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I understand Gwen, and thanks for your comment. But the section heading referred to me being careful, even though I believe it may have been a software prob. Anyway out of all this I am most upset that I spoke strongly to Duncan, who, in my opinion, is a great editor, because I did not realise it was a technical revert. Thanks to both of you anyway and thanks for visiting my talkpage. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's even more buggy on way high traffic pages with unbelievably sprawling edit histories like AN and ANI. Dr K, nobody thought you meant to do anything untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- The instructions on the edit conflict screen are downright wrong and disruptive, no-one should follow them. One should always do as Gwen suggests. EC's do remove all sorts of comments from all over the place. WMF would rather spend its money on shiny new skins that don't work, than on software capable of coping with busy discussions. Ages ago we were promised "liquid threads", which would, or so we were told, solve the edit conflict problem. They've been "just around the corner" for years. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- What happened is not a worry, nor is the rollback by DH. Please be aware that Nev's comment, which had been made 4 edits before yours, wasn't in your copied version, so it most likely wasn't lost in an EC. When I get ECs, I always copy (into the clipboard) what I wanted to post, then back up and start all over again. I've found that trying to navigate forward through an edit conflict seldom has the wanted outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I even transcluded the edit conflict template in my !vote. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sandstiens Talkpage
Thank you for your kind words of support towards my efforts on the encyclopedia. I know you weren't endorsing the actions behind my block but the concept of a indef ban for the word fuck and incompetant would have been a pretty lame reason to ban. Just wanted to say thanks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words Hell in a Bucket. I have valued your contributions for a long time and in fact I edited one of the articles which you greatly improved, a long time ago, long before I ever met you personally. So I was aware of your value as an editor for a long time and I respected you as such. I am not familiar with the latest problems of yours at WQA but I know that the word "fu__" is being used quite a lot all over Wikipedia. Just search for it at ANI and AN today and see how many hits you get. So to use this as one of the reasons for an indef block for you would not have been judicious or just. Anyway thank you for your visit here and take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for your well chosen and poetic words in articulating what many of us felt during the "reign of error". Classic word play combined with essential point for the good of the encylopedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is extremely nice of you Feyd to send me this message. Coming from an editor whom I deeply respect, having seen you around in various fora, is really something that I deeply appreciate. But what I value the most is your description of my message. It describes exactly what I wanted to express and highlights beautifully my intentions. I really thank you for that, and for describing the words as poetic. This is even better that I ever imagined about how my words would sound to others. I am honoured and deeply moved. Thank you very much and take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Appreciated help
Thanks for your clarification at the nomination for deletion page of Alexander Hamilton (reverend). I took no offense at your comment (about a page for me) since I had initiated that thread as an illustration and was treating it humorously. But you clearly recognized the issue with Norton's comment along the lines of "If you're a linguist, then you would know...". Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Taivo for your kind message. I am very pleased that you understood my initiative and even more because it appears to have succeeded. I am also glad that you understood the humour of my remarks, as I knew you would. But while thinking about your point about your credentials I thought that although I consider you a great friend and we share a few jokes here and there, that as the debate took a more solemn turn regarding personal comments, maybe all personal comments, even those in friendly jest, had reached their expiry date. So I removed them. It's nice seeing you here. Take care and all the best. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Piphilology
Hello, I'm not pretty sure that this is the right place to talk. If not, I'm sorry, I edit Wikipedia randomly and am not used to its etiquette.
I've inserted a known portuguese pi mnemonic at the Piphilology page that you reverted. Although I didn't put out the reason why I edited, and is a shorter mnemonic than others, it was shown at a famous Brazilian book (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_homem_que_calculava), a romance and introduction to math read by many children. Could I re-edit it, showing its nature?
Thanks for the attention,
Bruno Kim (bruno dott kim att usp dott br) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.23.82.184 (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am not sure how it relates to pi, because its message bears no relation to mathematics of any kind, although the word letters do add up to pi. I suggest you may want to propose this on the talkpage of the article first. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protection
I can, however, place an indef-semi on your user page... give them one-less target, if you'd like. Courcelles (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. We are going through some trying times. Thank you very much. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Good luck. Courcelles (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
u r welcome
kind of guessed and had no reason to buy into the accusations made by the anonymous and semi-anonymous user. I hope u will not be discouraged by these and hang around to help the article stay in a reasonably good shape. --CarTick 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your kind comments and for your assistance in that debate. Your help and expert advice are really appreciated. I hope you stay there too! I need any help I can get :) Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Personal attacks
I will do so, however I'd also add that several of your own edits could have been worded more civilly (e.g. [10], [11]) which could have contributed in deescalating this situation. Additionally, it is generally considered poor practice to remove edits which you believe are personal attacks against yourself. It will often anger the other editor, who likely will not agree they are personal attacks. In heated situations it is important to remain cool and not inflame the situation, which removing another editor's comments and marking them as personal attacks will likely do. In the future I'd suggest you leave the redaction of personal attacks against yourself to others. Prodego talk 02:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I will try to explain my position Prodego and thanks for taking action. I am not used to editors using ad-hominem arguments against me, which I consider poor form and detrimental to the collaborative editing atmosphere. You chose two examples, the first one is my reaction after repeatedly getting attacked so if it sounds suboptimal I think it is at least justified given the propensity of the other editor for repeated personal comments. The second diff you submitted was directed at another editor and it was an analysis of some information. In no way that edit was meant to be controversial. I do not see the problem in that one. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I mentioned to Nazar the actions of another editor shouldn't be needed to justify your own behavior. :) As for the "encounter any problems" wording, I leave that on the end of most of my warnings, to let the user know that if they do have any questions or problems, they should come to me instead of continuing whatever they thought was necessary before. To let them know that I'm happy to help if they need it. I certainly don't intent to imply that I believe you won't act perfectly reasonably. Prodego talk 03:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Mayawati
Thanks for your support but I find that the situation is unlikely to change in the interim unless the article is completely protected or receives the newer reviewer protection. It's more than likely that some of her supporters have decided to sign up for Wikipedia accounts and are now intent on removing any information critical of this particular individual. It seems like my concerns are falling on deaf ears on that article. Vedant (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message, but it doen't surprise me. Just look at the recent talkpage activity at that article. A few editors like Car Tick and Sayed were helpful but others were not as easy to communicate with. Let's give it some time and see how this evolves. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This is turning out to be fun... I'm not sure how much headway we can make if someone insists on making unilateral changes to the article. I think in the interest of not sparking an edit-war, I'm just going to leave everything as is for now and wait for an administrator to take a peek. Vedant (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- At least it is good to know that editors such as yourself actively seek to help out in situations like this. Let's hope for the best but we can only wait. Your collegial spirit and willingness to help are really appreciated. Take care Vedant. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. I just wanted to say that I am generally opposed to removing a criticism section because one user seems to have an issue with it. However, if it will resolve content disputes and guard against edit-warring, I can support such a move. I did however want to point out numerous articles on Indian political leaders such as Pratibha Patil, Lalu Prasad Yadav, K. Natwar Singh J. Jayalalithaa M. Karunanidhi, P. Chidambaram and Jaswant Singh which all have criticism sections. Given though that Mayawati hails from a community which has systematically been oppressed and whose inclusion into Indian politics is virtually unknown, it's only natural that some individuals are going to take objection when a prominent voice in their community is portrayed in anything other than a favourable light. Vedant (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Vedant. I am not a fan of criticism sections. there is actually a criticism tag {{criticism}} that says that criticism sections should be removed and absorbed into the main text because their presence is indicative of POV. So maybe we have to convert all the other politicians' articles and remove their criticism sections instead of the other way around. I'll reply further on Mayawati's talk. Thank you for the message. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 09:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm well I can see how criticism sections can be POV-ey but only if they're not managed. I do have to say that having looked at most featured BLP articles, very few of them have criticism sections so perhaps its a step in the right direction to go down that route. With regards to other articles, all I can say is it's going to require a lot of burning the midnight oil to fix them. Vedant (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. It is difficult to cure all articles of criticism sections overnight. It needs a lot of work. But for the Mayawati article at least we can incorporate both praise and criticism into the political reaction section and avoid the loud subtitles and separate kudos/criticism sections, i.e. a veritable mess. I'll try to keep up with your work at the article but currently I am on vacation with intermittent access to the internet. Thank you nonetheless for your constructive comments. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm well I can see how criticism sections can be POV-ey but only if they're not managed. I do have to say that having looked at most featured BLP articles, very few of them have criticism sections so perhaps its a step in the right direction to go down that route. With regards to other articles, all I can say is it's going to require a lot of burning the midnight oil to fix them. Vedant (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Thank you very much for the courtesy of informing me TFOWR. I have replied at RFPP suggesting a temporary hold of the protection request until further developments occur. Thanks again and take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Dr.K. I'm from Vietnamese wikipedia. I've translated this article into Vietnamese and nominated it to be a featured article in Vietnamese wikipedia. Everything is Ok except a request by another member that I have to provide citation for this part. You're an experienced member who may have a lot of interest in Japanese topic, would you please give me a helping hand? In Vietnamese wikipedia, we have a rule that only one objecting idea is able to deny featured status of a nominated article, therefore, without this "tiny" citation, Hasekura Tsunenaga cannot achieve what he deserves to. Thanks a lot :) Kenshin top (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Kenshin top. I am really honoured by your kind invitation and I would normally try to help as much as I could. However I am not really an expert on Japanese topics, even though I find then fascinating and sometimes I try to contribute. I addition I am currently on vacation and my internet access is not all that great. There is however User:Per Honor et Gloria who is really a top expert on Japanese topics. He also happens to be a friend and a very friendly guy. Just tell him that I sent you :), Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Intrusion!
Now we're even, ;). Honestly I appreciate you coming to my page and discussing that issue. Without your comments it would have been just me defending myself, which would have made me look a certain way. With you there, it all turned out better than expected. I appreciate you coming to my talk page. Please, add it you watchlist and prepare to be amazed at all the drama I get involved in. If you're looking for a good hour to waste, consider my archive of my talk page. It's from when I was active in some of the most contentious articles around, true fun. Beam 13:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- What a nice concept. Counter-intrusion. I really appreciate it :) At least it frees me from that bad feeling I get when I bust uninvited on other peoples' talkpages :) Thanks for that and for your kind invitation, although I am not very strong at looking at archives! It was very nice meeting you. And by the way feel free to drop by anytime here. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 01:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
What inappropriate image did I post? Please tell me.
WisdomToothless
Giving all these false pretenses. Define vandalism, before you go accusing others of doing it. WisdomToothless (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- You call these copyvio image deletions from Commons false pretenses? The copyvio and probable hoax image of Gabourey Sidibe deletion discussion at Commons where you are called a vandal and your talk page at Commons which includes notices of deleted copyvio images including the deleted Commons file 13rf.jpg whose copyright belongs to Sonja Flemming of CBS and you uploaded it claiming it was yours? As well as your recent edit-warring vandalism at Gabourey Sidibe which included your probable socks? And today you upload another copyvio image to the articles of Ragan Fox and List_of_Big_Brother_(U.S.)_HouseGuests? I suggest you clean up your act otherwise I see you reported to WP:AIV and indefinitely blocked for image vandalism. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for your nice note! Incidentally, it sure seemed to have worked -- the editor immediately improved the article with more material and references. Herostratus (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you in return for providing an elegant example of a proper inquiry into an article's notability and one that is suited best to collaborative editing. One that avoids confrontation and the drama of unnecessary AfDs while still yielding results and ultimately improving the article. This is a gentle, yet effective, approach which nudges the editor in the proper direction but without clobbering him in the head. This kind of quality communication is personal (thank you for not using robots) and subtle and brings more light to Wikipedia's editing environment and makes it a far nicer place for all, including those who witness it; like me. Take care Herostratus. It was very nice meeting you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 12:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Please warn users
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made on iPad: please use warning templates in the future. In case you didn't know, there is a {{uw-unsourced1}} warning, which is ideal after reverting unsourced additions. Thanks, —mono 23:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your message shows a complete ignorance of my contributions otherwise you would not advise me about using a template which I have used thousands of times in the past. In this occasion I simply chose to not leave a message because I felt that way. If there is a policy that obliges me to always leave a message please let me know. Otherwise leave these messages where they belong, i.e. the garbage can. In turn I would strongly advise you to familiarise yourself with policy and the contributions of a user before leaving messages such as the one you just left me. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I sounded harsh but I really dislike these behavioural modification messages especially if they are also patronising and completely ignorant of my record here. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Military Police
Perhaps we could put the link to the automatic translation back in the quote? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.38.49 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking about that yesterday. It would be nice to re-add it, but Google translation is so ubiquitous nowadays that anyone can translate any text readily without needing to be provided with links. So I decided not to re-add it. On the other hand if you so wish you may add it. Either way I'm ok with it. Thanks for visiting :) Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind message on my page doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NichlausRN (talk • contribs) 04:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In February you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [12]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing, and I've replaced the source and a Google search that was used as a reference with two other sources. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 19:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Fences&Windows, good to know. However while the Icon group may have been guilty of circular referencing in other cases, in the William Mudford case it is not possible to have referenced the article circularly because the article was created in February 2010 and the Icon pubs book was published in 2008, thus in this case we are safe from circularity. Since the fact supported was a minor one, (just a secondary title of his work The Iron Shroud), the old citation at least pointed the way to a reliable, although small, fact so it did serve a small purpose. At the time of writing the article in February, as much as I tried, Google came up with no other hits unfortunately to indicate the secondary title. It is good to know however that the citations of the article were strengthened. And even better that we have admins inquisitive enough to find citations for such difficult to verify facts and caring enough to find the time, away from their busy schedule of using their admin tools, to add them. Thanks again and take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)