User talk:Dr.K./Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dr.K.. 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 10

←

Archive 15

Happy New Year Dr.K.!

Happy New Year!

Dr.K.,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 06:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you very much L235. Happy New Year to you too! Cheers. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Les Mots bleus (album)

On 1 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Les Mots bleus (album), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Billboard magazine called Christophe's 1974 album Les Mots bleus "outstanding"? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 12:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Peace

starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Starship. Nice to see you here. :) Thank you for your nice message and Happy New Year to you too. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers :) starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong notification

Hello,

You left me a message here [[1]] for edit warring, despite I have only reverted it once. So that's wrong.

- 94.210.203.230 (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering that in your edit-summary you mention: 3rd time reverting sourced, useful additions without a clear reason., I took your word for it. In addition you are edit-warring across many articles, so that's disruptive and you will do well to heed the 3RR warning in any event. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I wrote that because User:Alexikoua started a reverting spree of large amounts of large edits I had made based on petty reasons (e.g, subsection titles I made, nitpicking over one-two words, sometimes he just reverted without even writing something, calling everything "disruptive IP edit") on 2 articles before I wrote that. Hence it was the 3rd time. Now I wonder, is it more disruptive to constantly revert someone's large sourced edits on multiple articles of the same topic based on the reasons I gave above, basically ruining all his work based on one or two words which could possibly be incorrect or not precisely formulated, or your claim that I am supposedly "edit warring" across "many articles" due to his reverts, with a notification you just sent me which isn't even correct per the policy to start with? (as I reverted it once) I might have made a mistake with writing that as a description in my edit summary, but still, I'd expect a more careful approach if I was given the power to give people warnings and such. If anyone is being disruptive here per the description of the scenaria I gave it's Alexikoua. Just saying ;) Anyway thanks for the warning to be cautious. A Merry Christmas btw! -94.210.203.230 (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd expect a more careful approach if I was given the power to give people warnings and such: No-one gave me the power to give warnings, everyone has that "power", including you. You are adding similar information across multiple Greece-related articles which causes content problems and is being reverted for valid reasons. Instead of starting large-scale edit-warring across multiple articles you should discuss on the talkpage of the article, before you readd this information. The warning about edit-warring that I gave you has the right information for you to consider given that you were reverting, but you reverted it, which is not a good sign. If you had read it, instead of reverting it, you would have seen that to be blocked for edit-warring you don't need to break the 3-revert rule but only to indicate that you intended to keep edit-warring. Since your edit-warring was large-scale, which meant that you intended to edit-war, and also since your edit-summary referred to three reverts, which meant that you didn't know about the three revert rule, I gave you the standard 3RR message to inform you about it. It is up to you now to consider your edit-warring options. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Just informing you that 94.210.203.230 is long term abuser and a banned user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam/Archive, you can remove this section if you like. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I knew something was up with this user and my suspicions grew when he changed the 300 Spartans to "several few thousands". Thank you Bladesmulti for letting me know. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy new year !

Happy new year to you too Dr.K . Hope this year will be great for you . Regards , Gjirokastra15 (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. Thank you very much Gjiro. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

How to tag a page?

Hello Dr.K., I'm writing you concerning the page The Fearless Vampire Killers. The page contents are mostly pulled from two review sites. I noted this on the Talk page, but still the page gets added to.

I don't know how to tag the page so a bot or Editor can look at the page and flag the sections for re-editing. Many thanks, --Mikepellerin^talk 06:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

On it Mike. Checking. I'll let you know soon. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I cleaned it up. Thank you for letting me know Mike. Happy 2015 btw. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

What to do when this happens? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kwon_Yuri&diff=640450992&oldid=640448649. Thanks Doc.--TerryAlex (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Random86 has given the 3RRR warning at :11 past the hour. Therefore the sock needs one more revert to qualify for his 3RRN report. I'll watch for the fourth revert and then I will file the report. I would have opened the SPI but I don't have all the information I need yet. So the resolution will be via a 3RRN-induced block. Thank you for letting me know and Happy New Year to you! Take care TerryAlex. P.S. if anything comes up, don't hesitate to let me know. It may be New Year's Day/Eve but computers haven't disappeared. ;) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, happy New Year to you too. It's still NY's Eve for me. I'm still learning how to do things properly, so don't hesitate to let me know if I happen to do something wrong.:) --TerryAlex (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much TerryAlex. Btw, you are doing a remarkable job. But in the unlikely case I see anything I'll let you know. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this editor "Kely123" is currently doing edit warring as well.--TerryAlex (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Terry. I saw that. This has to go through 3RRN at this time. Perhaps we can wait for one more revert. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Dr.K, this user "Anasapananas" kept on reverting, please keep a watch of him/her for me. I also happened to stumble upon another user "Aquamaraqua" (he/she has been reverting as well) and his/her reply on Shinyang-i's talk page. I try to avoid getting into an argument with other users. But how do you make the best "civil" reply when users make comments like that? Thanks Doc. :)--TerryAlex (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Shinyang-i and Random86, Dr.K., I saw what happened with Shinee (and obviously Shinyang's talk page), should I actually try to explain further, or should I just ignore it. There is so much resistance. From your experience, what is the best approach when we are being "accused"? I feel like explanation will continue to be resisted no matter what, and some would even accuse us of playing favoritism (even though that has never been the goal at all). I honestly don't mind being "hated", but just want to hear from an experienced editor like you. Thanks Doc.--TerryAlex (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm afraid to look at Shinee. When it comes to explaining things, many times there is very little point because when people are fueled by emotion they are often actually unable to accept even solid facts right in front of them. By that I mean their brain chemistry is keeping them from doing so. (This info is from my profession.) In a case like this that doesn't deal with solid facts, it's even harder. They are taking it all personally, as an assault on something they love; they actually believe not being able to list every group that even Koreans have never heard of will cause them real emotional pain. It's a contest. I could go on but you get the idea. I have no idea what to do about it. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems you've decided to call it quits, which is unfortunate. I wish I had some profound advice to give, but I don't. Alakzi (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Another sock?

What is your opinion of user:Binvoiler? One edit only, and it's to accuse someone of being racist. They are mad at an anon IP but somehow someone brought my name into it. Geesh, these people are weird. I think all the Got7 pages and now Shinee need protection; this is so absurd and unproductive. :( Shinyang-i (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw the sock, but I don't think s/he was referring to you. As far as I saw, they were responding to the IP edit. You are doing an excellent job, but you should be prepared for backlash of this type from edit-warring socks and IPs. The amount of edit-warring and socking in this area has actually improved over the past few years, but it still is rather high. For protection, if this gets any worse, a request at RFPP may be the way to go. Many K-pop pages are already protected and admins at RFPP are very responsive about providing protection to K-pop articles, more so than they were in the past. The profile of this area has been raised considerably over the past few years and admin response, always good to start with, has now become excellent, so not everything is bad. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. It's good to know what kind of support is available behind the scenes. [comments about troll name removed]. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it may seem at first glance that there is only haphazard protection of articles but actually there are many admins behind the scenes who help out, so thankfully, we are not alone. In any case, I also reported the last troll. It is best to just ignore, revert and report them any time they appear. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. I had the edit summaries and the user name removed because people just shouldn't have to look at that. By the way, do you know any other places to turn for getting comments from editors on reliable sources/establishing notability? The discussion at the wp:korea/popular culture is going nowhere and and some users are actually getting less logical the longer the discussion continues. They want to throw out all rules because kpop is ~*~special~*~. Or something. It takes all types, I guess. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Good job on erasing the troll. Next step, you should go to WP:RSN. I don't think any of the editors who advocate using these weak sources can defend any of that stuff there. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles Invite

Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.

Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet!

Todo list:

In response to your thanks. Your welcome, and could you please help me with the article Lord Upminster. There may be a barnstar in it for ya!. All the best Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Joe for your kind invitation. Although I'm not expert on music articles, I'll take a look and see if there is anything I can help with. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

50 DYK medal

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		You're more than entitled to this medal! This is to acknowledge your 50 (and counting!) contributions to DYK on the subjects of literature, film, culture, sports, and many other interesting topics. Keep up the good work! Yoninah (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Yoninah for your kind gesture and encouragement. Coming from you, a DYK regular and an editor I greatly respect, it is an honour and a very welcome surprise. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Thanks for writing on Jain Sculpture, every version of that page is violating copyright and also the current one. See User talk:Diannaa#Copyright issues. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No need of this page anyway, we have Jain Temple. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Blades. I have no position on the article's viability. I'm just removing the copyvios after I saw your comment on Dianna's talk. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I cleaned it up. Now you can safely delete it if you think it qualifies. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Enough is enough @bladesmulti, you are completely biased (nominating pages on Jainism for deletion). I am trying to explain you but you don't want to understand. Jain Temple & Jain Sculpture are two different things. Leave it as you are not an expert, let an admin who is part of WikiProject Jainism decide. Jain Sculptures are found at various places in Tamil Nadu (at more than 480 sites, but they are not temple)

Thanks Dr.K. for making me understand the copyright thing. I am a beginner and didn't knew this. Thanks for cleaning up the article. But can you tell that if a news is published relating to any wikipedia article, how should I add it to the article?. Like this news- http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/metamorphosis-of-a-mahavira-image/article1866338.ece, how should I add this to article Jain Sculpture. And in this news report, a scholar's comments are there, can I add them as it is?talk 13:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@ProudJain: Thank you ProudJain for understanding my message. When you add details from a source you must use your own words. To do that, try to imagine what the main idea of the information is and, without looking at the source, put it in your own words, always trying to avoid copying the sentence structure, syntax and grammar of the source. As far as quoting people you can do that as long as you put quotation marks to indicate their words and you should also try to keep quotations to a minimum. I hope this helps. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Razzies

I'm not sure why you reverted my razzies edits? It is an award. Can tell me why you reverted them. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC))

It's a rather long story. But check this discussion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the note! I think I'm going to give myself a fresh start on Wikipedia (knock on wood). Cool Hand Luke 16:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I am knocking on wood indeed! Your presence is really needed on the project. Your eloquence and calm demeanour have always impressed me greatly since very long ago and I am very glad for your return. Take care Luke. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Stealing

Absolutely stealing the top of your talk page to put it on my own, provided you don't mind! Love it. G loss 18:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL. If that kind of compliment from a veteran editor can be called stealing, please feel free to steal anything I've got. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

SPI

Hey, I've opened an SPI to check for other accounts for Mr Wiki Pro. I figure that you can weigh in if you want to here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Separation of Regions from their Peripheries in Wikipedia (and new beautiful maps for them!)

Hello again my friend. I am happy to announce to everyone (and to you, first of all), that after some really hard work and many hours in my office, I finally managed to learn how to edit the .SVG image type of files which are used by Wikipedia for maps and charts.

This newly-discovered knowledge, enabled me to deal with a chronic issue of the English Wikipedia's articles regarding Greece and its provinces: Poor quality low-resolution maps. If you have been to various pages such as Epirus (Region in Greece), or Western Thrace, Thessaly and Peloponnese, you probably have noticed how all these pages had different map styles, often low-resolution. So, now, I learned how to edit .SVG files and re-create all of Greece's provincial and regional maps in high quality and high resolution!

To see the difference in quality, here I give you some samples of my work:

Previous, low-resolution map (used by Wikipedia) for Epirus: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Periferia_Ipirou.png

My new high-resolution map for Epirus: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Location_map_of_Epirus_%28Greece%29.svg

Previous, low-resolution map (used by Wikipedia) for Central Macedonia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Periferia_Kendrikis_Makedonias.png

My new high-resolution map for Central Macedonia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prefecture_map_of_CentralMacedonia_%28Greece%29.svg

You can find all of my uploaded maps at WikiCommons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SilentResident

The new maps are using the .SVG format which permits the users to zoom it for closer look, in contrast to the .PNG formats of the previous maps which wasn't zoom-friendly.

The maps I have uploaded, are two versions of each region of Greece - the Regional map, which is about the historical regions of Greece (Region of Epirus, Region of Central Greece, Region of Macedonia, etc), and the Prefecture Map, which is the Kallikratis Plan's Administrative maps of present-day Greece (Periphery of Epirus, Periphery of Attica, Periphery of Central Macedonia, etc).

Now I have run into a problem:

I found that the Wikipedia did not adopt a CLEAR policy regarding the separation of historical from the administrative articles - well, at least for Greece. For example, Wikipedia has two articles (one historical (click here), and one administrative (click here)) about Peloponnese, because the Periphery of Peloponnese does not have authority over the entire Peloponnese. But, at the same time, Wikipedia has only one article about Thessaly (click here) and its Periphery, merged into a single article, even if the Periphery of Thessaly is not limited to the region of Thessaly, but has extended authority over many islands of the Central Aegean Sea.

If things weren't bad enough in Wikipedia, some articles had a double name formula, such as this article, here, about Crete (click). In Crete's article, you may have noticed that the English name of the Infobox refers to the island (Crete), but the Greek name of the infobox refers to the administration (Periphery of Crete) which are two completely different cases. Islands and Administrations shouldn't be confused! With simple words, I am saying that the government of the island is NOT the same as the island itself! Right?

The Periphery of Crete, in fact, is not governing only the island of Crete, but also has extended authority over many other nearby smaller islands around Crete, and thus, proves my point that the separation of the islands from their governments in Wikipedia is required.

To end my message to you, and to summarize what I am trying to say here, is that I am looking into giving some professional attention to Greece's articles, so the regions to have separated articles from the administrative/governmental entities that govern these large regions. That could really help have things sorted out.

I am (almost) done creating the .SVG maps for the these Regions and also I am almost done creating maps for the Peripheries that rule over these regions. The maps are of the .SVG format and of high quality. Give a look to all files! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SilentResident What do you say? Couldn't Regions be separated from Peripheries (where this was not done yet, such as Thessaly and Crete)? --SilentResident (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you SilentResident. I'll check this in detail when I have some time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Razzie situation

So what your take on the state of consensus? I have to say that there is so much use of the award in articles on performers that it's like playing wack-a-mole, but we must do our best. I assess the consensus of discussions so far as to "remove unless sourced." What do you think? Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. You have my support on that. I'll watch out for any reversals of consensus. Thank you Coretheapple. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

OK good! Well feel free to follow my contributions and I'll do likewise. However, it may be a few days before I can get started in earnest. Coretheapple (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Corfu/ Greek History

I would appreciate more of an unbiased attempt from your writings/listings/ and edits that are viewed and accredited form ALL international institution and scholars as such. I could give you examples, but in particular this is a message pertaining to your comment on "minorities in Greek". I would have a good idea on the subject since my origins are Cham Orthodox from Janina, Filati, and Parga. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllyrianDodona (talk • contribs) 23:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A Little Help Here....

Hey Dr.K., I was wondering if you'd be able to help me promote "Alexander O'Neal" to at least GA, I've created like four or five articles for his albums some minor work on his actual page etc. and I was wondering if you'd like to help. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure Joe, no problem. I'll participate in the GA process. Let me know when it starts. I'll also check the article anyway to see if it needs any copyediting. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2014

I thought the image I uploaded was copyrighted but used under Fair use on Wiki guidelines. No/Yes? Jeydo (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No. It has to be a free image taken by someone who will upload it under a free license. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok I understand that thank you. Since Wikipedia.org is considered a non-profit organization, they would be considered non-commercial then right? I will also read more into what you wrote on my talk page. Jeydo (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and yes, Wikimedia is a non-profit organisation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong though, the 2nd time I added it I was just shrinking the picture down & didn't notice your earlier edit. So I know already they're non-profit - but that means they are non-commerical too then right? So then I will direct you here (Please read #2) & here. This would apply to the whole website then I believe. And in the end, I just wanted to add a picture to brighten it up too but how would I google such a thing that's allowed? I was considering asking for permission after you edited as well - but maybe I could arrange a event for her to visit my state. Where are you from? Because my wife is Colombian and she was completely stoked when Paulina Vega won! She jumped up and down turning in a circle, and it made my heart warm as I saw her reaction that I haven't seen since their progress in the World Cup last year. :) Just thought I'd share that, although I'm sure Ms Vega will become popular over the next year & I hope it's very beneficial to her country as well. You should visit there sometime if you haven't been yet. I've been over there about 5 times now.

Ok, so either way quite frankly - I'm glad you edited me in the first place. Because whether I was right or wrong doesn't matter to me, but that this happened at all in the first place. Life is too short probably to learn everything for as much time as I have on this planet, or even Google it each time - until we subject ourselves to the machine & putting microchips in us is a safe (well mostly anyway) commonplace practice. Anyway, just looking at your talk page, I get opened up to another world of creativity of photos I haven't seen before. You seem like a pretty cool guy & a guru at the Wikipedia or at least know what your doing. I wish I could probably watch you in action & learn somethings over a video chat, or how-to videos. Some of the conversational pieces seem like a script for a "Inception" sequel in fact - You could probably guess which one eh? So I'd like to thank you for the experience before I go to bed, and hope something else good comes from it too. Don't be a stranger. I edit as Jeydo over here on the other side of things, but I don't know a Wikia from a Wiki entry, except it's more fan & media driven IMO and less of a Encyclopedia entry to educate the masses.

http://fishwrangler.wikia.com/wiki/Fish_Wrangler_Wiki

If you have any personal Wikias, Wiki pages you'd like to share, or whatnot please do so on my Talk page when you have the time from your personal endeavors. I haven't been on a fishing boat in awhile since my dad sold his, so for now virtual fishing is a great escape when I have a few minutes or hours to myself & some great company around the world as well. Tight lines as they say there! Jeydo (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Well, I thought your other one in the pic needed some company. This one's for you - don't worry, I brought my own! But now I'm tired & thirsty for real. What's your top 5 favorite brews? I like a good hard cider myself. But prefer champagne, wines & liquors like tequila & rum. Jeydo (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jeydo for this great glass. I enjoy British ales, although Belgian and German lagers are excellent as well, not to mention the Greek brands. Cheers. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Streep

Thanks for your work with cleaning up the sources. I'll be getting her up to GA status. I have the Longworth Anatomy of an Actor book which I'll be using for starters. It's a great book which I highly recommend if you like Streep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Doc. Thank you also for adding some new and very interesting material to her article. When this all started I was indifferent to her, but now that I got involved in her article I realise she is a great actor and an eloquent and intelligent woman. I'll get the book. I'll also try to help out in the GA process when it starts. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you get the book? If not when I return it to wikimedia UK (I got it and anumber of other books including Althorp, Waldorf Astoria New York and Stanley Kubrick through a grant) I can ask them to send it to you. I'm sure Krimuk90 would love to get hold of that Streep book, but not sure if WMUK will send it across the world to him!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I would absolutely love to get access to that book! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I found it in the local library! Yay!! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I haven't had the time to look for the book yet. Thank you very much for the offer Dr.B., although I'm not sure how this can be worked out. Perhaps it would be faster and simpler to just order it from Amazon or, as Krimuk did, try to get a copy from a library. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A (few) questions

Hey Dr. K.,

Just wanted to know what you think of SYRIZA getting voted into government in Greece. It has even made news here in Australia!

Besides, I need to ask for one small favour. Due to my location, my IP address gets accused of regional bias. I just need you to search up into Google 3 things:

Port Douglas
Port Douglas -queensland -australia
Port Douglas -canada -british -columbia

Could you provide the number of results you get for that? For Port Douglas I get 14.1 million, for Port Douglas -queensland -australia I get 8.56 million (yet the location is still showing up as Australia), and for Port Douglas -canada -british -columbia I get 8.84 million.

I am not fussed if you cannot do this. Cheers, Luxure Σ 05:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luxure. I get very similar results to yours for all three. As far as SYRIZA, I think it was a natural reaction to the unprecedented and longterm austerity measures. Only time will tell what will happen. I certainly can't. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It is also interesting to note that the Greek Parliament has 300 seats, for 10-12 million people. The Australian Parliament has only 150 for 24mil.! Although we do have an upper house of close to 80 seats, still brings it no-where near to a size of 300. Why's that? Luxure Σ 10:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question, but I'm not sure about the criteria for determining the number of constituencies in Greece, or for that matter, in any other country. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate article

Hi Dr. I wonder if you'd have any advice on merging Eleni Theocharous with Elena Theoharous. The first is newer and unreferenced, but longer and more current. Alakzi (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alakzi. I think one option you can try is to propose an uncontroversial move to the article that has the name version you think is the best. In the proposed move you can mention that these are duplicate articles and that history and contents have to be merged. You can then fine-tune the article after the merge. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr, I'll try that. Alakzi (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome Alakzi. Thank you also for your hard work. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. It looks like I couldn't avoid the RM, so this is probably not getting resolved until next month. Alakzi (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Too bad. I guess it must be technically difficult to process it through RM. What a mess. Thanks for persevering Alakzi. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dr.!

Have a good day! Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome Macedonian, but it was no big deal. Btw, I hadn't noticed you were back until today. Welcome back. :) Nice seeing you around. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, Dr.K. thanks for your contributions to Alexander O'Neal, I may be asking as lot but could you please help me with the article Bruce Foxton. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joe. No problem, I'll have a look. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

New photo for Topp Dogg

Hi Dr. K., I just attempted to upload a concert photo to the profile of Topp Dogg, File:Topp Dogg, World ToppKlass Tour, Houston 2015.jpg Is this acceptable to you? I didn't know what your message meant on the profile image line area. Do I leave your message from the prior deleted photo? This is the first time I am uploading it here, and I have sent an OTRS request with permission granted by the copyright holder Barry Tse. Thank you.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)THANK YOU! I understand now - it had a Watermark - I will correct and resubmit.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to mark the file for deletion but can't quite get it right. File:Topp Dogg, World ToppKlass Tour, Houston 2015.jpg I've requested an unmarked file from copyright holder, thank you!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: Hi Bonnielou. I see you have uploaded a new version without the mark. You can remove the deletion tags from the image if you have the OTRS permission from the photographer for the new version. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I uploaded the original version from Flickr instead, to Wikimedia Commons, after the copyright holder agreed to do that. I'm still trying to get the hang of it. This one can be deleted. Thank you for your help.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome Bonnielou. I'm glad it all worked out. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

:)--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests#Requested move

Some editor is committing ownership and is accusing me of doing "ad hominem" attacks. Also, he told me not to come back. You're an administrator, right? If so, can you do something about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs)

@George Ho: Hi George. I was visiting ANI on unrelated business and I happened to see that the topic of the HK protests renaming had already moved there. From a cursory reading of the exchange I can see that you and the other editor are well on your way to resolving this matter. So I don't think that my advice is needed any longer. On the other hand, instead of offering any advice, I would just observe that amongst difficult topic areas on Wikipedia, AfD and contested move request discussions seem to bring out the worst in people. That's why I participate in those areas, only if I must. Any other time, I avoid them like, to use an old cliché, the plague. I'm not sure if you feel the same way, but if I had any advice for you, it would be to avoid this area as much as you can. In any case, don't hesitate to contact me if any other problems arise. And no, I'm not an admin. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Jessica Watson

You set up an archive on Talk:Jessica_Watson. The section title of the last archive made for a timely editorial comment in the article history; the coincidence made me smile. Thank you for your input on the whole matter. SEC (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha! I just saw the title about the hype. That was really funny in the context of the recent developments. :) I take this opportunity to thank you for your expert opinion on the WSSRC definition, which I just saw in Archive 2, and for your kind comment about my input. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Reported for edit warring

You have been reported for edit warring here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring 184.153.132.54 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Beatrice of England revert

Hi, you recently reverted an edit on the article Beatrice of England, and said it was a good faith edit. The editor you reverted changed her father from Henry III to Neil Patrick Harris and changed her mother from Eleanor of Provence to Kate Middleton. I can't how that's in good faith, so I'm just wondering why you said so in your edit summary, and I assume it was just a mistake so I'm just checking. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it was not a mistake. The user calls herself Princess Jessica of Palnovia and seems like an inexperienced editor. I will not assume she is a vandal until I have more evidence. She also went to Wgolf to ask him/her about advice how to improve her userpage. Her MO is not that of a vandal but of an editor needing guidance. Don't forget, the assumption of good faith works best when you stretch it a little, especially when you have valid reasons for doing so. Applying AGF only on obvious cases is rather useless. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I admit that assuming good faith is something that should always be done, I mean that's the point of the policy, but this seems as clear as it can get as Beatrice of England was born several centuries ago whereas Neil Patrick Harris and Kate Middleton were born several decades ago, therefore biologically it is impossible for them to be her mother. It is 100% that they are not Beatrice's parents and so it makes no sense for that edit to be made. I think you're taking the assume good faith rule too far. I also think that you should treat this edit alone, and not base it off of editing history. There's a reason you don't argue ad hominem and there's a reason you shouldn't assume that an editor who is asking for guidance wouldn't vandalise a page. This is just my opinion and I don't think we need to discuss such an insigificant thing too much, but I just thought I'd throw in my two cents. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I know who Kate Middleton is and I know that the edit was unconstructive and that's why I reverted it, so no need for the ex post facto analysis thank you. But when you assume good faith, you assume good faith not for the edit but for the editor who made it. If you revert an edit, the edit is almost in all cases unconstructive. But AGF does not apply to the edit but to the intent of the editor. I cannot judge what the intent of that editor was based on the information I currently have. But based on AGF I will not assume her intent was vandalism. Perhaps she was daydreaming when she did that edit, I don't know and I don't care. But I will not label her a vandal due to the application of AGF in this case. I know she is an inexperienced editor who appears willing to improve herself, so I will give her the benefit of the doubt for now. That's what AGF is for. If you knew it was good faith, or you were certain about it, you wouldn't have to assume it. But that would not be AGF, it would be "Certainty of Good Faith (CGF)", a useless thing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The analysis was just my incredulity that someone could think that was correct coming through. As far as AGF goes, I'm gonna be honest, I never looked at it that way before. You honestly opened my eyes there. Thanks. It's a policy that I guess works in life as well as wikipedia. SamWilson989 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh and also your timing is impeccable, both times I tried to post this you created an edit conflict :P SamWilson989 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Sorry for the inadvertent edit-conflicts. I guess you have to assume good faith that I wasn't doing it on purpose. :) Thank you also for your enquiry. It is an example of how a good-faith enquiry can work in a wiki environment to elucidate certain concepts for the benefit of both editors. Putting my ideas about AGF in words clarified my understanding of it further. Thank you for that as well. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Calling All Stations...

Hi, Dr.K. could you please help me with the article, Chris Spedding. Many thanks an' all, yours truly Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem Joe. I'll take a look as soon as time allows. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am truly out of words

Alexikoua just brought a source where it was proven without a doubt that you two were right and i was totally wrong . My certainty faded away , to be replaced by a strong feeling of shame and remorse . And i feel especially bad with the fact that i disrespected you when in fact you merit all my respect . In all honesty , i did not see your message in my talk page when you had written it because antidiskriminator had written another message 2 hours after you in my talk page ( you can check it ) which made me not see your comment. I am sorry for not assuming wp:goodfaith especially from you . Please do understand that my behavior was of a foolish man believing that he was 100% right and all the others were trying to manipulate the data . I am not trying to fix anything , as i take full responsibility , however i do want to make this clear , and offer 1 more time my apology , given your more than correct and very patient behavior towards me .Next time i will think twice before reverting you . Have a great day :) Gjirokastra15 (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries Gjiro. My respect for you is great enough to withstand such misunderstandings. I had recognised your integrity early on and this incident proves to me that I was right. Thank you very much for your kind comments and I reciprocate the respect you show toward me. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your edit revert message

Hi Dr.K.; Your edit message suggests that you did not see that the other editor you have posted regarding the Wikipedia article has decided to ignore your message. Here is a short summary of the history for easy access. He is currently edit warring against EngineeringGuy there and I posted my support there and requested Talk since he was reverting against two editors. Can you follow-up with him since I have done this to support another editor. The history of that editor is to first template tag material he is deleting and then to delete it in a week. Should it be set back to EngineeringGuy and await the tag-delete editor to start Talk to establish his consensus. Here is the revert in his he ignores your message:

(cur | prev) 12:54, 10 March 2015‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (206,358 bytes) (+66)‎ . . (→‎Wikiprojects, and assessment of importance and quality: challenge OR (see Talk:Wikipedia/Archive_22#Distribution_of_article_importances)) (undo | thank)

Short form of his edit history reverts against two editors

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(cur | prev) 04:02, 10 March 2015‎ LawrencePrincipe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (206,292 bytes) (-57)‎ . . (Undid revision 650685967 Support for Engineering Guy. You may run the tools yourself to verify the source of the statistics.You may ask for help on Talk if you do not know how to. You are reverting against two editors and putting nothing on Talk.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:12, 10 March 2015‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (206,349 bytes) (+57)‎ . . (Undid revision 650605543 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) "verification" does not exempt from sourcing and I do not edit against anyone. see Talk) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 13:38, 9 March 2015‎ LawrencePrincipe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (206,170 bytes) (-57)‎ . . (Undid revision 650599715 by Chealer Support for EngineeringGuy. Stats have been verified by 2 editors and you are editing against 2 editors. Make consensus on Talk.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:36, 9 March 2015‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (206,227 bytes) (+57)‎ . . (→‎Wikiprojects, and assessment of importance and quality: challenge incorrect tables and graphs.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 04:51, 9 March 2015‎ LawrencePrincipe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (206,170 bytes) (+2,406)‎ . . (Undid revision 650561159 by Chealer (talk) Support for EngineeringGuy. You are reverting against 2 editors. Make consensus on Talk.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:35, 9 March 2015‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (203,764 bytes) (-2,406)‎ . . (Undid revision 650555455 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) see

(cur | prev) 03:32, 9 March 2015‎ LawrencePrincipe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (208,123 bytes) (+2,406)‎ . . (Undid revision 650360137 by Chealer (talk) Stats are verified.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 22:44, 7 March 2015‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (205,695 bytes) (-2,406)‎ . . (Undid revision 650164563 by Engineering Guy (talk) already done) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 16:36, 6 March 2015‎ Engineering Guy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (208,101 bytes) (+2,406)‎ . . (Undid revision 649434618 by Chealer (talk) restoring valid content. if you have a problem, please discuss on talk-page.) (undo | thank)

This is the short form history from the Wikipedia edit history page. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K.; Your edit message suggests that you did not see that the other editor you have posted regarding the Wikipedia article has decided to ignore your message. How is it possible that my edit message suggests that I did not see that the other editor decided to ignore my message when I posted my messages to you and him/her approximately six hours before his/her recent reversion at 12:54 UTC? I am also perfectly capable of reading talkpage histories without having them dumped on my talk. As far as the edit-warring, it must stop at this stage from your part because you are also at three reverts and the matter should be resolved through talkpage discussion and not through further edit-warring. You should follow WP:BRD and start a discussion on the talkpage of the article. Btw, I have opened a 3RRN report regarding the other editor. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dr. K, may I ask for your help?

Hello Dr. K,

I notice that yesterday you placed a warning on the talk page of LawrencePrincipe (talk) for edit warring on (I assume) the Glengarry Glen Ross (film) page. He has continued to delete the material that is the subject matter of the RfC discussion. He has also posted a prominent Supplement at the very top of the RfC on the talk page, saying that because the RfC is poorly worded it may be closed immediately, and has also said that no changes to his deletion can be made in any case until the RfC is closed.

I am a relatively inexperienced editor; maybe I am in the wrong and he is correct in what he says. But I do not know how to respond, or what is the correct course of action. Any guidance which you could provide would be much appreciated.

Best, Xanthis (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: He has re-implemented his changes a third time without discussing them on the talk page, and has gone ahead with his threat and closed the RfP according to "WP:SNOWBALL," even though there were many excellent and eloquent points being made on both sides. I have never before encountered such aggressive behavior on Wikipedia. Help! What should I do? Xanthis (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Xanthis: Actually my warning to the user was about the article on Wikipedia. In any case I saw that the editor's close got reverted by an admin at the film article talkpage so this matter seems to have been resolved. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Even more better resolved now, I noticed, Doctor; the user has been blocked by Swarm for edit warring and disruptive editing, with a very full and clear rationale about exactly the things Xanthis was concerned about — inappropriately closing the RfC, etc.[2] Glad it worked out, Xanthis. Bishonen | talk 22:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC).

"Even more better resolved now" LOL, thank you very much Bish for sharing your great sense of humour. Say hi to certain cute lizards, but don't talk to them about me very much, lest they get any ideas about remodeling my userpage or making it disappear altogether. :) Take care Bishonen, it is always nice talking to you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll certainly pass on your kind greetings, Dr K. They're not all lizards, you know. There's a Trojan princess (bit of a Greek connection there), and a romantic poet. All sorts! Bishonen | talk 00:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC).

My apologies. I wasn't aware that such dramatic and learned counterparts existed. In that case I'm feeling a bit more hopeful that destruction is not the only outcome when one encounters a member of the Zhilla family. I particularly like the names; Cassandra's description really pushes the envelope of drama while the poet's name is a really nice play on the name of the actual poet, or is it the other way around? One never knows with such beings. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Glad it worked out, Xanthis." Thanks, Bishonen! That was my first time on an administrator noticeboard, and I had no idea what to expect. My faith in Wikidom has been confirmed... Thank you both! -Xanthis (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome Xanthis, although I didn't really do much. But your kind thoughts are appreciated. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, Dr.K.,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I hope you had a great Christmas and a Happy new year! Please take a look at the articles Carolina Neurath and Karolina Olsson that I have created. When you find time for it! Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying BabbaQ. I'll take a look. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A Request

Could you please help me with the article, Stephen Dawson. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure Joe. Sorry for the delay but I've been busy IRL. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Nice job on Meryl Streep NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL. I had no idea about this barnstar. :) It is a nice-looking barnstar and, coming from you Neil, it is an honour. Thank you very much. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A well deserved barnstar. It's all too rare that someone actually steps up and adds citations. Thanks for making the point that it is possible! --Djembayz (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Djembayz. I enjoyed your remark about making a point that it is possible to add citations. :) Yes, adding citations is not difficult in many cases, but somehow you see tags all over the place which could easily be removed with a few Google searches. Actually I did not intend to find twenty five citations, at least not at the beginning. But it turned out that with the right combination of keywords the references dropped out of Google like confetti. I couldn't ignore that, and it actually was fun anyway, so I continued to the end. Some tags were there from 2012, although a simple single string search through Google provided the reference in no time. Perhaps there should be an essay on how to find citations but I'm not sure if it would help increase citation-adding at the expense of tagging. Thank you for dropping by. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	The Surreal Barnstar is awarded to any user who adds "special flavor" to the community by acting as a sort of wildcard. Yes, you Greeks are wild! YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, what can I say? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Likely BLP violation

Hi Dr.K.—hope all is well. Could you please take a look here? Alakzi (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alakzi. I'm very well, thank you. I hope everything is well with you too. I tried to clean up that section. I think using youtube as a source for the BLP should be limited, especially when using channels dedicated to politically attack the subject. If you encounter resistance in the article during any cleanup, you should take it to BLPN for wider input. I'll keep an eye as well. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing alright. Thanks for the cleanup, much appreciated! Alakzi (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are well. You are very welcome, as always. Thank you for your great work in this difficult area, as well as all the other great things you do for the project. It is always nice talking to you. Take care Alakzi. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

When you've got time, could you also take a look at Evelin Banev? I do get the sense that the only way it can be fixed is with a gas canister and a match. Alakzi (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I did a small cleanup but the body of the article has a lot of details and many Bulgarian sources which make it difficult to verify the material. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I've had the same problem; mostly, I copyedited for style and tone, and removed the things I thought were obvious fabrications. Alakzi (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Another request

Could you please help me with the article, Leo Sayer. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem Joe. Take care. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Kudos!

I like the satirical hatnote above this talk page. : } --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You are an admin that is making personal attacks

It is disappointing to see admins like you, engaging in personal attacks on users and try to take them out of Wikipedia, because they do not follow your own personal agenda on things and are adding value information with evidence. What a shame....Pampos40 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Giorgos, you know I supported you and tried to help you understand the operating principles of Wikipedia. Instead you chose to become a sock. I am disappointed, very disappointed. By the way, I'm not an admin. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I will ask Giorgos, but I don't think that he will have something good to say. You have being proven to be the number one personal attacker of the team, that is trying to enforce their agenda on anything related with Cyprus. You could have done otherwise, yet not only you let this team to be trying to enforce Cyprus to look, like the worst criminals house in Wikipedia, but as I see you are leading it as well. What a shame.... By the way, if you think that in this country we will not do anything, and we are going to let you and a few other propagandists enforce a portraying of as, as 100 time worst than what we are, you are mistaken.Pampos40 (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Και σ' ευχαριστώ!

I really appreciate the thank you notes you have sent me from time to time. Coming from an experienced editor like yourself, I feel they do mean something. I am thinking of creating a new SMS language acronym for such occations: BMHHIA - bowing my head humbly in acknowledgement. I take this occation to wish you Χρόνια Πολλά (and, if applicable, Χριστός Ανέστη). Kind regards! --T*U (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Xristos anesti and may you have good luck for the rest of the year! Happy Easter! Luxure Σ 11:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Alithos o Kyrios. Happy Easter to you too Luxure, and thank you very much for your kind wishes. Take care and all the best to you too. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

New proposal

pls see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban Chealer from Wikipedia altogether -- Moxy (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Moxy. I'll have a look as soon as time allows. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice.

I am merely informing people who i know are interested in the topic, who are experienced editors to examine the article themselves and to place input. Your right right though, wording may be a bit excessive ! There is nothing that says that contact between wikipedians is forbidden.

Resnjari (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not if the heading is: "IMPORTANT DELETION OF SOURCES IN THE CHAM ALBANIANS ARTICLE BY ALEXIKOUA- Need assistance:" and the identical POV message is pasted across multiple user talkpages. That's called WP:CANVASSING and even spamming. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Like i said, i thank you for your kind advice. I have taken it on board. I was not familiar with those procedures. Its good that you pointed that out for me. Resnjari (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for understanding. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Blunders done by user to Samma tribe article

Satush have done blunders and you are defending him. he have done blunders to Samma tribe and Rajpar articles. If you are making Wikipedia a reliable source of information so please don't remove historical information of particular geographical things,places,peoples. I belong to Sindh and Pakistan, where Samma_tribe ruled. see Samma Dynasty. So I know better the history of my region more than anybody else. here its requested to refrain from removing the content of Samma tribe. give Sammat or Samma tribe article its previous status of contents. thanks. Hope you perceive my point of view.--Jogi don (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yogi. I have replied on your talkpage. I hope you understand my point of view as well. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Some help

Hiyo, could you please help me with then article, Ian Henderson (footballer). Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure Joe. Sorry for the delay on the other one too but I haven't forgotten. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki

Hi, can I interest you and page stalkers in this project? For starting missing articles from other wikis. I'm sure Corfu for instance has more articles on Greek wikipedia. All about addressing systematic bias. If so put your name down on the project talk page and add a tick by your name. Even if not, at some point we'll do some Greek stub of the week drives and will need your input on what is missing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I created a pin map for Corfu, which can be seen in Pontikonisi. You might add infobox building or military structure to some of the article and a pin map.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Doc. The project is a great idea. I'll check it out as soon as I get a chance. Thank you also for the article on Pontinonisi and the map. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for European Sea Ports Organisation

On 8 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article European Sea Ports Organisation, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the European Sea Ports Organisation represents over 98 percent of the seaports of the European Union? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/European Sea Ports Organisation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Clint Boon

Could you please help me with the article, Clint Boon. Thanking you in advance Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem Joe. However as I am currently on vacation, or at least supposed to be, it may take some time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey no problem, man. Now you go and enjoy yourself like a true wikipedian (not in the wrong way!, huh-huh). Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

LOL thanks. :) Take care Joe. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, no problem. Peace out, wait sorry, Joe Vitale 5 out Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Do it in the Wrong way! hahaMe ow !! 05:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

SPI link

Hey, Dr.K., if you meant to link the words "this ANI report" in your recent SPI to the relevant ANI report, I think you forgot to. Best, Bishonen | talk 17:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Hi Bishonen. I did not forget. I was in the process of finding it until I saw the unfair closing remarks of the ANI report. I left you a message about that. I will try to add the link immediately. Thank you very much. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the above before my post; sorry I seem to have beaten you to it. But thanks for your note, and nice to see you again too. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ncmvocalist. I missed your presence here so I am glad to see you back in action. I had never before told you that, but I always enjoyed your logical comments and spot-on technical analysis, even in the very few times I mildly disagreed with you. So there. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, our recently blocked friend has expanded his latest slander article on ComandoSupremo and named and quoted you, among a few others from his favorite article.174.240.6.216 (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You know that you deserve this... So take it!. And with it know that someone out there, like myself, really do appreciate your fine edits. 'Stay Up' & Keep Rocking. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Joe, thank you very much for the honour, as well as your nice, straightforward comments which I greatly enjoyed. :) Thank you also for your constant and tireless work improving so many articles. They are on very interesting topics and thank you for giving me the opportunity to copyedit them. You deserve your own barnstar so who knows. :) In any case don't hesitate to let me know if you think I can help in any way in the future. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please help me with the article, Tom Bailey. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I hate to feel that I'm asking for too much, while giving so little (though I am). However, could you please give your undivided attention to the article, The Style Council. All the best, for being the best Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem Joe. I'm glad I can help. I'll check it out. Thank you also for your kind words. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you please me with the article Niall Hone. Thanks! Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Btw, I checked the The Style Council earlier in June and I didn't find anything that jumped out to be changed. Take care. Joe. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, maybe a little help with the article Philipp Tschauner. It seems to be poorly translated from German. Thanks! Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Consider it done. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If you've got any spare time, could you please help me with the articles Every Sperm Is Sacred and Galaxy Song? Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem Joe. I'll check them out. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Me again! (sigh), if you've got any spare time, could you please help me with the articles Mark Mothersbaugh and Devo. Thanks! Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I am already behind on the other requests. Hopefully I'll find the time to fix this pile-up. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you've got any spare time, could you please help me with the article Andy Pratt. Blessings always :) Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Please help me!!!! with the articles Peter Perrett and The Only Ones; you shall be knighted! Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please help me!!!! with the articles Casey Royer and D.I.; sadly, it turns out that I can't knight you. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please help with the article Martin Fry? Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ozkan

Hello, firstly have a nice vacation! I was wondering where you accessed the Ozkan source, if it was online. Was it Google Books or another website? Apologies for the suddenness of the question, it really appeared like a valuable source that could potentially be useful to elaborate more on the Young Turk aims and methods for the Armenian and Assyrian genocides, or at least have valuable information for the formation of a Turkish Cypriot identity. --GGT (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you GGT for your kind wishes. The Ozkan book is at url http://books.google.com/books?id=kCArlsRcHUMC&pg=PA199 which means it was found on Google books with full preview of page 199. That's how I was able to add the quote in the citation. Somehow Gbooks is no longer showing me full preview. Not sure why. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Fighting Irish (Family Guy)

Please see response to your comment. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Another of Alexy's socks?

Hi Dr.K. Please check out Special:Contributions/Ayka3b if you've got time. Alakzi (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Funny enough I was doing just that. It doesn't look good but I need more evidence. Thank you very much Alakzi. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

OR from court cases, uploads crap quality photos with municipality logos plastered on top, and edits about billiards and other obscure sports in Northern Cyprus. I think we've found ourselves a duck. Alakzi (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a clear duck. Unfortunately I am travelling now so I will not have time for the next few days. If you can open an SPI it would be great, otherwise I'll have to do it in a few days. Thank you Alakzi. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've let you do all the work again. I should reciprocate - some day. Alakzi (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm still travelling but I couldn't bear watching what is going on on the EEA and Northern Cyprus talkpages. As far as reciprocating, I think you are busy enough. Keep doing your great work Alakzi. All the best to you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's see where this is heading. Alakzi (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@GGT: FYI. Alakzi (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Alakzi. Looks like fowl play but let's wait and see. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexyflemming. Alakzi (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Hi Alakzi. Well, you didn't have to but you did reciprocate. :) That is a professionally-done report with clear diffs hitting all the right notes of behavioural comparison. The SPI admins also acted very fast and prevented more disruption which was just the icing on the cake. Thank you very much. I just hope you continue in this field. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Greek bashing?

Is that when someone drives over my gyro? :-o

Loved the dictionary comment, by the way Doc! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kansas. I would never attack a gyro either; it's so delicious. :) How are you? Sorry for the delay in replying but I am on the road lately. Thank you very much for your kind comments. Take care. 10:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Doing better. Dodging hail, tornadoes and excessive rain lately. Were you visiting Tornado Alley for a little excitement this year? Take care, Doc! --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you are well. The weather description sounds intimidating but I wouldn't mind experiencing this spectacular phenomenon from a safe distance at least. :) All the best Kansas. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Pahlavi State of Iran

This is straight internal copyvio from Pahlavi Dynasty by an editor you've encountered, Artin Mehraban (talk · contribs), who despite several warning still hasn't a clue about our copyright policy. His comments at Talk:Kashtariti make it clear that he thinks temporary blatant copyright violation (the article was lifted from a website) is ok, and that slowly changing words can avoid a copyright violation (see his latest edits at Pahlavi State of Iran. He's been adding images that he thinks are flags or symbols[3][4][5] and that last link also changed the color of Cyrus the Great's standard. It appears to me that there's a serious competence issue here. Do you think it's worth taking to ANI? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Hi Doug, thanks for asking. I was aware that this editor has a significant competence issue even before you provided this additional evidence. The only mitigating factor that I see is that he agreed to stop his edit-warring of low-quality, self-made map into the article of the Ancient Macedonia Kingdom. This makes me hope that he could possibly accept some advice and stop the disruption, although it is a rather faint hope. Given the evidence and erring on the side of caution I think that he should be warned that if he continues he will be blocked. Perhaps we could even consider a mentor. If these fail, ANI is the only remaining option. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you think should be done with the Pahlavi State of Iran article, which is both internal copyvio and external, as I've discovered quite a bit of 2003 copyvio in the original? Doug Weller (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The internal copyvio can be handled by an edit-summary or talkpage notice mentioning the internal transfer. If the external copyvio is isolated it can be removed. If it is spread all over the article and is difficult to remove manually then the article should be stubbed, redirected or deleted. If the article is not deleted the copyvio edits sometimes also get revdeled if they are substantial. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

RE: Nonconstructive edits; Eastern Roman or Byzantine?

Miss Paris Slue The reason why I changed early Byzantine emperors (Arcadius to Phocas) from Byzantine to Eastern Roman is because they ruled at a time when the Eastern/Byzantine Empire still bore a strong resemblance to the Roman Empire of classical antiquity. The Eastern Empire itself would've ended in 610 AD. That's when Heraclius switched the court language from Latin to Greek and reformed the military and administrative divisions from obviously Roman to what are now seen as Byzantine. What existed from thereon was Byzantium. --Miss Paris Slue (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Not sure what the cut-off date is. Perhaps you can ask Cplakidas. Thank you for your message. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Balsic talk

Why did you send me that notification when currently I am dicsussing at the talk page? Rolandi+ (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is good but I just wanted to give you the exact rules of edit-warring since nobody else did and since you have exceeded three reverts on that page. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. Rolandi+ (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Rolandi. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI και άλλα τινά

Για όταν το δεις μετά την επιστροφή σου από τις διακοπές:

Τί ακριβώς έχει γίνει με το ANI;; Το κοιτούσα πού και πού, μετά εξαφανίσθηκε, συνέχισα να κοιτώ αλλά και πάλι τίποτα;; Τί γίνεται συνήθως σε τέτοιες περιπτώσεις;; Όχι ότι αγαπώ τα διαδικαστικά αλλά εις μάτην έλαβαν χώρα όλα αυτά;;
Πέραν των παραπάνω, προσπαθούσα και προσπαθώ πχ να ξεφύγω λίγο από το τί γινόταν στο περί ου ο λόγος άρθρο, ασχολούμενος κυριότατα με την πραγματικότητα γύρω μου εκτός WP (εντός WP έκανα μόνο λίγα άσχετα και πάνω κάτω ασήμαντα edits αλλού)· αυτή από μόνη της αρκεί, υπεραρκεί νομίζω για να καλυφθεί και να εξαντληθεί ο χρόνος και η ενέργεια κάποιου, πράγμα το οποίο δυστυχώς ακόμα και εδώ στην WP κάποιοι ίσως τρέξουν να το εκμεταλλευθούν...
Γυρίζω λοιπόν πριν λίγο τυχαία στο άρθρο, το κοιτώ καλά και τί βλέπω;; Είχε αφαιρεθεί ήδη από της 19ης τρέχοντος τελείως η όλη παράγραφος αναφορικά με την Πολεμική στα Μέσα κτλ!!! Ενημερώνω ότι αναίρεσα την εν λόγω αφαίρεση... Thanatos|talk|contributions 11:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thanatos666. When an ANI report disappears with no action it is most likely due to general indifference about the subject matter. Two editors actually voiced their disapproval of the nationality-based attacks on the Greek editors but the matter was eventually dropped. Don't get me wrong. I am experienced enough to know that WP:CIVIL is on its death throes on Wikipedia when I was filing the report and I didn't have too many hopes about its outcome. But the reaction there surprised me because I thought that nationality-based attacks merited more attention than simple breaches of civility. I guess I was wrong. I happen to believe that discrimination-based attacks of any kind are the lowest form of incivility. It seems that editors willing to engage in such tactics got off scot-free this time. As far as the wholesale removal of the over 25 KB section on media coverage without any attempt at rescuing any of the information, remember that it was performed by one of the editors who were praised at ANI, but I digress. I personally refuse to engage on a talkpage where Greek editors are viewed with suspicion and which is littered with base nationality-based attacks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo indicator in articles

Many articles have an indicator above Kosovo, like so^[a]. The syntax, {{Ref label|status|a|}}, implies that the status of Kosovo is "a" (I take as meaning "disputed"). However, to a viewer perusing the article and pressing the "a" and seeing nothing (rather like when they press 1 or 2 and see info about references), they would wonder what it meant. I could not find a template relating to Kosovo, so without any info, why is it even there? Upon pressing the "a", would they not expect to see info concerning the Kosovo dispute? Is there even a template for it? Cheers, Luxure Σ 05:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luxure. I checked the functionality of the template in the France–Kosovo relations article and it works. When I press the [a] it takes me to the note explaining Kosovo's status. Perhaps in other articles the note mechanism at the bottom of the article is missing. I'm not sure if a standardised template for the status Kosovo exists. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Meryl Streep has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Dr.K.. Meryl Streep, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 17:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit Wars Warning

I have clearly declared my thesis in talk page, I do not receive any response even I ve directed the user reverting my contrb. to talk page section. It is not an edit war, I am trying to solve a NPOV issue. OnlyTheTruth 08:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantikadam (talk • contribs)

Cats will take over the World one day

We already have. - BilCat (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL. I never thought of you as a cat. Now I realise how wrong I was. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I was born human, but now I identify as a cat. ;) - BilCat (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't do that. I know cats are the real masters of the world so I am resigned in my role as just a human. I'm just grateful they tolerate me. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I used to feel that way too. Then I realized that I really am a cat in human form. I don't wear ears and a tail though, as I'm usually undercover as a human in my work for the CIA - Cat Intelligence Agency. - BilCat (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I should have known. The plan is far more advanced than I ever imagined. I should seriously think about joining the feline version of the CIA. Alternatively I could apply for a position at the KGB, the Kitty Government Board. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the KGB would be a good choice, though they go by FSB (Feline Security Bureau) now. - BilCat (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Touché. I had forgotten about the re-organisation after the dissolution of CCCP (Confederation of Collectivist Cat Proletariat). :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem <:)> - BilCat (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in the Administrator's noticeboard

Hello dear Dr.K.! I was surprised to find you in the Administrator's noticeboard, on the same issue that I was caught into, in regards to Rolandi+'s edit wars with other users on Balkan-related articles, and I wanted just to thank you for your support. I admit, for a moment I wasn't sure what was going on there, I didn't knew of Rolandi+'s involvement in more feuds with other users, and when I saw my name in the Administrator's noticeboard, I was worried that my life in Wikipedia could have been put to an end with a ban or something, just because I tried to defend a page against POV edits. Thank you again and have a nice day. :) --SilentResident (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you SilentResident. In this case the problem was that a known edit-warring champion, serial creator of multiple edit-wars across many Balkan articles was put on the same scale as you. I think that was unfair. I also think that people engaging in any type of action in this area should have at least a modicum of content awareness regarding the Balkans. Keep up the good work but also try to avoid any 3RR complications just in case. I know it is frustrating when dealing with serial edit-warriors but don't forget this is a community project and sooner or later the community will resolve this. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, thats true. I will keep this in mind. Thank you again. :) --SilentResident (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A wikipedia user, is trying to blackmail me! Any advice?

Dear Dr. K, I am sorry for bothering you (and Athenean) right now, but the user Rolandi+ is trying to blakcmail me now, in the Talk: Albanians, he threatened me twice:

"So revert your edits about the albanians in turkey,or I will report you after that ANI"

and

"I may be blocked for this topic,but this doesn't mean that I can't report you for your vandalism.So go and delete your edits about albanians in turkey"

If I didn't misunderstood, isn't this a warning or threat? Isn't he warning me that if I don't undo his reverted POV edits, I will get reported? Isn't that a blackmail? How should I respond to his blackmails? What is the appropriate action for such cases in Wikipedia? I am asking for your and Athenean's advices, as I am not sure what to do. :( --SilentResident (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just united my voice with the rest of the people asking for Rolandi+'s ban. --SilentResident (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Meryl Streep

On 17 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Meryl Streep, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that President Barack Obama awarded Meryl Streep the 2010 National Medal of Arts and in 2014 the Presidential Medal of Freedom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Meryl Streep. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Steve Vai

Hi, trying to update some info about my boss, Steve Vai, based on his current setup and activities. Can you please approve my edits or contact me at andy@vai.com? Thank you kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.41.208 (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. If you have reliable sources this material may be acceptable. However there is the conflict of interest problem because people associated with the artist may not edit the article without consensus. I would therefore suggest you find reliable sources for the content and then propose the edit on the talkpage of the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that feedback. The sources we've cited provide photos and descriptions not coming from inside the camp. They're well documented and also cite official releases through Sony Records (2015 "Stillness in Motion" was deleted from our updates).

You are welcome. Regarding your edit, it was a large one. From what I checked there were no inline citations supporting the material. There were also many details that had no support from any sources. I suggest you eliminate all the material that cannot be verified and only add the material that is verifiable through independent sources. I also suggest you open a section on the article talkpage to present the material you want to add so that other wiki editors can offer their opinions. My talkpage is not the place where wider consensus can be achieved. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Su 30 MKM

Hey man thanks for changes. Can fix my grammar on edit mkm section. thanks

Kyral

Re: Edits I made to the Straight Edge Razor page.

I was actually adding references to an section which did not have citations for its cost sources. My two references (in full Harvard format) were for the number of times a razor cartridge can be used, and the cost of the said cartridge. Previous content in the article just had these figures assumed, and I was set to make further adjustments in the next day as to where those figures may have come from/ replace them with cited references.

Please check what has been improved before threatening other users with adding unreferenced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyral (talk • contribs) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

When I reverted you had not added any references. So don't give me advice that is not applicable in my case. If you added references later good for you but you did not add any references when I performed my revert. In fact I also reverted you at Razor when you added completely unreferenced claims. Please make a habit of using re;iable sources for all your edits. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

accounts

It is not intentional. I don't know how I ended up with two accounts... Califate123! (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Just choose one and redirect the other to the one you chose. Perhaps you can also ask an admin at WP:CHUS to merge the two accounts. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Fyunck(click) for all your hard work. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) which affects the recently renamed page Myanmar. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit on population figures of Greece

Oh, my apologies, I did a mistake with my edits. I didn't meant to revert your edits, but that other user's edits who included the irrelevant foreign ethnicities in the population figures that are only about Greeks. My apologies, Dr. K, and thank you for your edits. Have a good day! :) --SilentResident (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all SilentResident. I understood from your edit summary that you were not referring to me. Thank you for your note and take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, my apologies for referring to you as "Student" in my edit-summary. I thought it was another user, Student7, who changed my edit. I must have been looking at the wrong article history. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries, everything is ok. And by the way, I made some improvements based on your edits, with the aim of showing the actual Greek pop figures of Greece, and removed other ethnic pop figures, since the page is solely about Greeks. I hope this looks better now and more relevant to the page's subject. :) --SilentResident (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you SilentResident. Please be my guest correcting the figures. I trust your expertise. In any case I am not very fond of ethnic population stats. I don't know why but let's just say they are not my cup of tea. :) Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Straight razor

Hello, upon further review I completely agree with your point of view that it was unnecessary information, thus I feel removing the information is correct. However I do feel the "Cost" section should have more information in it than it does now. ThanksBodha2 (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bodha2: Thank you for your message. Please feel free to add some more details and I will help out if there is a need. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"Edit Warring"

Ensuring that NPOV tags are present until the issue has been resolved is explicit policy. As you hadn't touched the article before the NPOV tag, I doubt very much if you would have enhanced the article without it. If you cannot understand official Wikipedia policy, I suggest a refresher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.89 (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your complaint was: -Pinochet mention quite dubious-The cited source is a rambling essay by a self-described VJ/DJ, with no apparent expertise in the subject, and is a mere assertion, lacking any actual evidence. to which I agreed and then I supplied 10 (ten) new sources, many from specialist books, supporting the assertion that torture chambers were used in Chile during Pinochet's dictatorship. What exactly is your problem now? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

As you hadn't touched the article before the NPOV tag, I doubt very much if you would have enhanced the article without it. I, not touching the article? LOL, I am the main contributor of the article. But yes, thank you for flagging the need for better sourcing, although the tag was removed after I had supplied two RS on my way to adding eight more for a total of ten. That should be enough I suppose. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Firefox Iani and his IP(46.19.231.255)

I believe Firefox Iani has been given enough warnings, rope and time to explain his edits. Should we proceed with a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Would you care to do the honors? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kansas. Thank you for your message. I don't have the time currently but if you start something I will chime in as soon as I return. Up to you though, no pressure. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It's done, Doc! The report. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Kansas. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Gunther von Hagens

Hey, a long time ago, you added some details to this article, including some weird stuff about a hidden laboratory and a section that is surely out of date by today, on what he was "currently" working on seven years ago. The cited website is dead. Do you have an idea on how to salvage this? In the current version, this section has become much shorter and my instinct suggests to just delete it... Greetings, --Xario (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Something he was working on eight years ago can still be included in the article by changing the tense. As far as the link it can be partially retrieved via the Internet archive and I fixed it at the article. The video doesn't work but the website and the date have been archived. Also the fact he kept a secret lab behind a mobile staircase is included in the video. This was also a TV appearance and can be included in the TV appearance section. In any case, this discussion should take place at the article talk if there is some reason to be discussed with the wider community. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thx! The talk page has a question concerning the lab since 2010 with no reaction, so I thought, I'd ask you directly. I am now going to copy our dialogue there, because while the internet archive is a good idea, it doesn't really help that much, does it? I find this lab thing very odd and haven't found anything else about it... --Xario (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I replied there. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Vlorë Demographics

I did explain in the edit summary. It says "reverted - incorrect data". I reverted it to a the version of https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vlor%C3%AB&oldid=676078158 because the demographics data used on 01:25, 16 August 2015‎ and after does not belong to Vlore town or municipality. Agroni (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not sufficient. The number "104,827" in your version is unsourced while the version I restored is sourced to the 2011 census. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. The numbers you are displaying are for the Vlore County and not for Vlore municipality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlor%C3%AB_County — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agroni (talk • contribs) 02:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you propose these changes on the talkpage? And where does the number "104,827" come from? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

All right, let me explain everything. First of all this is not an edit war, even though one of the editors kept reformatting my fancy demographics table, but that's fine. It was me that first brought the census 2011 data on 01:25, 16 August 2015‎ but I was supposed to put that in Vlore County not in Vlore municipality. However, there were few edits not only in demographics section but on another section too, so I could not just click on the UNDO. So I copied the version of the demographics section from before my initial edit and pasted it as final version.

So the number "104,827" was already there from before my initial edit. And that's what I reverted to by copy and paste. You can find it here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vlor%C3%AB&oldid=676078158 Agroni (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it. I'll revert my edit and my warnings on your talk. Thank you very much Agroni for your patience. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. However I do like using the "wikitable sortable" to present such data. It is used on american towns. I would like to continue my contribution and bring census 2011 data for all counties of Albania. Can you support me in keeping the data in table format? Agroni (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on MOS regarding tables but if it is used elsewhere I see no reason why it shouldn't be used for Albanian towns as well. Let me know when a discussion takes place and I'll offer my opinion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page

The issue has been taken to the talk page. I invite you to have a look and contribute to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.180.67 (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind invitation. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for the welcome message. If possible please have a look at the talk page for some feedback and feel free to ask any questions or make any comments regarding the discussion. Kind regards,SuperMeunier (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Litsa Diamanti

On 20 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Litsa Diamanti, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Greek singer Litsa Diamanti has been described as the "child-wonder of the sixties decade and the absolute diva of metapolitefsi"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Litsa Diamanti. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look

..at the article about Ester Claesson and Lo Kauppi. Thank you. if you find time for it.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Babba. Will do. Nice seeing you. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Thalys attack

If you believe the move request is "uncontroversial" then please close it out and make the move. Nevertheless, this section shows a couple editors who don't approve, and there are others in the Survey who also don't approve. How sure are you it is "uncontroversial"? Furthermore, the tag is legitimate and often used there is nothing wrong with its use here. In this case it is useful to get a WP:SNOW so we can make the move sooner than later. I'm willing to set some timeline on that, maybe another 24hrs or something, to build a convincing case. Otherwise we are looking at waiting 6 more days before the article can be renamed. Which is worse, a few days of the tag, or 6 more days with a bad title. -- GreenC 13:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: Yes, please RfC this for a SNOW close in 24 hours or as soon as possible to get the issue solved - readers won't care either way. "6 more days with a bad title" - the title isn't "bad" - you only propose adding the word "train" - there is no accuracy dispute about the current title - just a stylistic change.

The stats for 2015 Thalys attack shows that the article has already been viewed 22,997 times, while the talk page has been viewed 643 times. That's 2.7% of the traffic.

Keeping this tag up on a high traffic article for 7 whole days means that it is likely to be viewed by more than 22,000 people reading the article. Of those, fewer than 2.7% will have any input to make.

Let's try to get this closed as quickly as possible. -- Callinus (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom and Callinus: Many move requests are disputed in the sense that there would be no move request had the original title not been challenged in the first place. But that does not mean that we have to add title-disputed tags on the mainspace article just because a move request is being made at the talkpage. My first involvement with the article was to prevent the replacement of the original tag with non-standard ones. But subsequently I checked and saw that the tag is not used in many move requests. Even during the very controversial Burma move request such tag was not used. So I decided to remove it. In any case, I see that the article has now been moved so, as the saying goes, all's well when ends well. Thank you both for your kind invitation, regardless. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In this case the tag was useful as the page was getting so many views that it drove more editors to the talk page to !vote, thus achieving a snow within 36hrs or so. Otherwise we would still be waiting to rename the page. -- GreenC 17:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

They've found your gold!

Go get it, Greek man! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks. I had seen this piece of news but it takes you to give it this delightful spin. :) Thanks for that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Justinian I

I have made a proposal on this article's talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kansas. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to give your opinion here? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Countess of Corfu

Hello! Your submission of The Countess of Corfu at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yakikaki (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Islands

I removed the infoboxes in the articles about the Aegean and Ionian Islands because these maps do not show the actual outline of current Greek or Turkish regions. In Turkey, the Aegean Region is larger than just the coastal islands that belong to Turkey. In Greece, the Aegean is divided in a northern and southern region. Kythira is not part of the region of the Ionian Islands, as it is included in the region of Attica. Why do you believe these faulty maps should be included in these two articles? — 37 ^(talk) 04:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. If the maps are faulty, replace or remove the maps, not the infoboxes. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention in putting things in your mouth. The infoboxes did not contain anything else than the map and the indication ‘region of Greece/Turkey’. Because it is unwise to leave empty infoboxes in articles, I removed them. I hope you understand this logic. — 37 ^(talk) 04:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope you understand that when you ask me Why do you believe these faulty maps should be included in these two articles? you strongly imply that I believe that "these faulty maps should be included in these two articles", which is putting words in my mouth. In the case of the Ionian islands the presence of a small island not belonging to the region is a small perturbation which can be rectified by a description pending modification of the map assuming that there is currently no other alternative map. A similar solution can ve found in the case of the Aegean islands. But you should propose these changes at the article talkpages putting forward a detailed rationale and waiting for consensus to form. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you clearly seem to think they should be included since you’ve just put them back in the articles. You are correct when you say it’s a good idea to propose on the talk pages to add a correct map. But you are wrong when you say removing the faulty maps should be proposed first. On the contrary, even small perturbations - and this is not the case here - should be removed immediatly.— 37 ^(talk) 05:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This is according to your opinion with which I disagree. Kythira is geographically and historically part of the Ionian islands. The article is both about the historical and geographical Ionian islands as well as the region. The case is not as black and white as you may think. For these controversial issues to be resolved, including the Aegean islands, a wider discussion is needed at the talkpage of the articles. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Kythira is not part of the Ionian islands as a political subdivision. Therefore, an infobox that shows the opposite is misleading. Of course Kythira is part of these islands geographically and historically speaking. This is the reason a geographical map is already placed inside the article. This is not some ‘political’ or ‘controversial’ statement I make. Did you even read the talk page of the article? The problem with this infobox has been raised before. My edits clearly served a good purpose, unfortunately you seem to think otherwise.— 37 ^(talk) 06:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have replied at both article talkpages so I think the local discussion here has reached the outer limits of its usefulness. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Countess of Corfu

On 20 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Countess of Corfu, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rena Vlahopoulou, the star of the film The Countess of Corfu, was born in Corfu? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Countess of Corfu. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Acqui

Then doesn't there need to be an article on the battle? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW I added an entry to the Massacre's Talk page. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know

It appears that a particular editor is now pushing their POV whilst logged out.[6] This particular editor has already added original research [7][8] and removed referenced information.[9] --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Opinion needed

In regards to the appropriateness of Template:Did you know nominations/The Creeping Garden for a special occasion request: when I see slime mold, I think Nethack instead of Halloween (Google "nethack slime mold" if you do not recognize the reference). That being said, if you really want to move it to the holding area, I won't stop you. --Allen3 ^talk 16:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks for the information regarding the connection between slime mold and nethack. Very interesting. As far as the DYK, I just wanted your opinion. I gather it is rather lukewarm, so I won't insist on the idea. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Turkey

No, I will not. As I noted earlier, you and several other editors were together edit-warring a demonstrably false statement into the article. While the other editor was a sockpuppet of a blocked user, that doesn't make your actions less unwelcome. Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, you are out of order accusing me of edit-warring for reverting a sock. FPaS already told you at ANI that the sock is a disruptive sock farmer and his edits should be reverted as part of standard Wikipedia procedure. FPaS and NeilN also told you at ANI that your hoax allegations are unjustified and that the statement is definitely not "demonstrably false" as you allege as it is backed by a reliable source. It is too bad you don't recognise the heavy-handedness of your actions in this matter. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

DrK is correct blocked and banned users do NOT have application to 3rr unless it's an article edit that you personally take responsibility for. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me be clear: the source did not say that the map illustrated Kurdish-majority areas. You added a claim that the map said that. You added a demonstrably false claim, i.e. a hoax. While socks are normally reverted, we don't revert every edit made by such a user; we retain obviously useful things such as spelling fixes, and hoax-fighting likewise needs to be retained: it's more important to have a correct article than to stick it to block-evading users. If you wish, I can unprotect the page to enable you to restore the hoax to the article, but such will result in an immediate reversion and block. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: At ANI, Future Perfect at Sunrise told you that: "Wait a moment. Sorry Nyttend, I've undone your closure here. First, please don't keep using the term "hoaxing", that's not what we're dealing with here. The person who first added the map, Athenean, [10] had just previously also added a sourced textual description [11] that said that "Kurds make up a majority in the provinces of Dersim, Bingol, Mus, Agri, Igdir, Elazig, Diyarbakir, Batman, Sirnak, Bitlis, Van, Mardin, Siirt and Hakkari, a near majority in Sanliurfa province (47%), and a large minority in Kars province (20%)." I haven't seen anybody challenging the correctness of the sourcing for this sentence. I assume that Athenean believed in good faith that the textual description enumerating those provinces matched the area described in the map, in which case his use of the map with the "majority" caption would have been legitimate. If he was mistaken in this assumption, overlooking that there might have been some factual differences between the two areas, that would make it a case of inadvertent source misuse, but not "hoaxing", which by definition would have to be deliberate. Certainly this should have been hacked out on the talkpage." NeilN voiced similar concerns about your use of the term "hoax". But you insist on falsely accusing longstanding aditors with alleged hoaxes. My reversion of the sock was fully within policy. Your stretching of the definition of "hoax" is noted. This is a reflection on your editorial judgement not on the editors you falsely accuse. As far as your threat If you wish, I can unprotect the page to enable you to restore the hoax to the article, but such will result in an immediate reversion and block., instead of issuing idle threats to longstanding editors you should go to the talkpage and justify your baseless "hoax" allegations. Better still, you should change the protection log entry as I originally requested of you. But even if you don't change it, it will remain as a permanent record of your completely flawed definition of "hoax". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I quote WP:HOAX: "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real". For the final time, let me remind you that you attempted to trick the article's readers into believing that the map depicted Kurdish-majority areas, a false statement demonstrated by the map's description page and its source. This has repeatedly been shown to you, but you continue agitating for the contrary. Perhaps Kurds are the majority in those provinces; I don't know the subject, and I'm not addressing that issue. I'm talking about your misuse of sources, not the article content. When someone repairs a falsehood, it doesn't matter who they are: a blocked user's sock who fixes a hoax is helpful, and an established user who inserts the hoax is not helpful. Further agitation will be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Please cease your baseless attacks trying to justify your mistake. Two fellow admins already took issue with your use of the word "hoax". That should give you a hint, but I won't hold my breath. Read what Future Perfect at Sunrise told you which I added to my talkpage for convenience. This was a cited fact by a reliable source which justified its inclusion in the article as a caption. The map and its source can be augmented by reliable sources so that they can be interpreted more fully. This is standard practice on Wikipedia. Accusing established editors of "hoax" using idiosyncratic definitions of the word and ignoring support by RS is behaviour unbecoming of anyone let alone an administrator. There is also an open new section at the talkpage of Turkey explaining this very issue. I was fully within my editorial rights to revert the sockfarmer and the information I restored was backed by a reliable source. Instead of trying to use more false arguments to attack me on top of your previous idle threats you should do the decent thing and participate on the talkpage of Turkey and defend your false hoax allegations. Also your comment: Further agitation will be ignored. What a telling remark. I thought we were engaging in a discussion. I guess you view our exchange like some type of insurrection in some kind of correctional facility. Funny that. I always thought this was an encyclopedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Not sure why you're doubling down here. If I yelled out "hoax!" or "hoaxer!" every time I came across an editor adding content not properly backed up by the source they were adding, I would be hit with the AGF stick pretty quick, especially if it was a veteran editor who kept out of trouble. There are better ways to express your concerns. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I am quite shocked to see how Nyttend is still accusing users of hoaxing. I suggest Nyttend to WP:DROPTHESTICK already. He has misused powers granted to admins and deliberately ignores the advice and complaints of over five users. Dismissing legitimate claims by veteran users and admins is counter-productive to a simple issue of content and wording. Calling every user a hoax and threatening to block them each and every time displays symptoms of needless disruption. The sources are there. Please deal with it accordingly through dialogue and discussion. Why the stonewalling? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Neil for your comment. Actually, as FPaS mentioned, the source backs up the statement in the caption. These provinces as depicted in the map have majority Kurdish populations. Thank you Etienne for your comments as well. Apart from the baseless hoax allegations, apart from calling my legitimate objections to his unjustifiable harangue agitation and saying Further agitation will be ignored. as if he is speaking as a warden to someone incarcerated in a correctional facility, he also resorted to block baiting: If you wish, I can unprotect the page to enable you to restore the hoax to the article, but such will result in an immediate reversion and block.. He threw down the gauntlet just in case he was not already on a strong-enough power trip. And all this because I reverted not only a sockmaster but a tenured 8-year disruptive sockfarmer with close to 100 socks. In all my almost 10 years here I do not recall worse and more out-of-order behaviour from anyone, let alone an administrator. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Why!

What! Steezlol429 (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

AN discussion you might be interested in

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You have mail

Hello, Dr.K.. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jbh ^Talk 03:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible Mistake

You have sent a "Discretionary sanctions notice about Armenia and Azerbaijan" in my talk page. I don't partake in Armenia, Azerbaijan topics in Wikipedia, this must be a confusion or a serious prank. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I can understand your confusion. To clarify, it applies anywhere on Wikipedia where the Armenian Genocide is mentioned "broadly construed". It also includes pictures of the Armenian Genocide. I suggest you read the relevant WP:Arbcom decision. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

So you think restricting my access to editing articles in Wikipedia is justified? on what account? You are abusing your power because you don't like the way I handled things? I will not take this insults lightly, when people like you push newcomers around and restrict their ambition for having better articles. I'm not involved in any Armenian or Azerbeijan topics at all, and putting me in "Requests for arbitration" behind my back feels like betrayal and stabbing and works in the shadow? (Personal attack removed) Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't get excited and read my note at your talkpage again. It is just an information update without prejudice of wrongdoing. Btw, I took the liberty of removing your personal attack. I will also give you a formal warning on your talkpage since you apparently did not follow my advice at the talk page of the article to not continue your personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of Twinkle

Hi, Doctor K. Re [12]. How do you mean, their right to use Twinkle will be removed? Is there a way of technically removing their access to Twinkle? Or do you mean they could be banned by an administrator from using Twinkle? I haven't seen that done either. Can you link me to somewhere useful? Because obviously the user needs to stop abusing Twinkle. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. Now that you asked, I can't quote chapter and verse but I do recall seeing a conversation in some noticeboard about removal of Twinkle. However it has been a long time and I can't be one hundred percent certain. I could check further but I need some time. Perhaps a tps could provide some technical information faster than I can. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen again. I checked the ANI archives and there have been discussions regarding removal of TW. I can't link to them currently because I am using my ancient touchpad and it is not very good at copying and pasting. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen: There used to be a blacklist which would stop users but in 2011 there was a rewrite of TW which did away with it. Blocking is the only way to stop them from using it.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both. Very useful to know, Berean Hunter, because it's something I've been wondering from time to time. But I guess it's not really ever the Twinkle use that is the issue: it's abuse and disruption, for instance posting nonsensical warning templates. It's just that Twinkle makes it so quick and simple, which is unfortunate in some cases. Anyway, I have warned the user against making personal attacks — such as calling contradiction "vandalism" and/or "racial discrimination" [sic] — and will block if it, or other disruption, happens again. (Dr K, you don't think a new touchpad such as mine makes it any easier, do you? I hate the damn thing.) Bishonen | talk 13:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC).
The story with my HP TouchPad is that a few months ago its battery went so dead, because of lack of use, that the machine needed charging for almost 24 hours to even turn on. Since then I use it for simple web surfing just to keep the battery on a normal charge-recharge cycle. To make matters worse this antique tablet runs on WebOS and its keyboard does not have the control-button making copy-paste shortcuts such as ctrl-C/V impossible. It was during that time that Bishonen asked me about the details of TW removal. I replied to her as best I could under the circumstances. By the time I had graduated to the news that TW-use was moved from monobook.js to user-preferences, thus making it unremovable, I just gave up trying to explain it from the venerable but limited touchpad. That's when Berean Hunter picked up the slack, for which I thank him very much.

It is unfortunate that TW access cannot be removed as was the case in the past, but as Bishonen mentions it is the disruption that must be stopped rather than the use of the actual tool. The thing is that in contested areas, where the editing is frequently toxic, using semi-automated tools to attack other editors makes these attacks both easier to carry-out and potentially more frequent. India-related topics are one of those toxic areas where use of semi-automated robots should not be allowed as a means of proliferating attacks against any editor, let alone editors like Sitush who for years have been cleaning up the local mess. Personal attacks are often used by disruptive editors as tools to increase their leverage in editing disputes. The last thing we need in this project is the introduction of robots as attack tools in the hands of disruptive editors. That is why I intervened. To make matters even worse the offending editor not only abused TW, s/he also abused the edit-summary field by leveling hard-to-defend-against edit-summary attacks. If their behaviour continues a block would be required, which would also solve the TW abuse problem by default since use of TW while blocked is not possible. Thank you both for your comments and advice. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Doc, have you seen this proposal for improving the situation at caste articles? About to be closed as sucessful, I do believe. Should make Sitush's life a little easier. :-) One can hope. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC).

Hi Bish. Yes, as it happens, I did see the proposal a few days ago when the 500/30 proposal caught my eye. One can only hope as you say. If the 500/30 rule proves inadequate, perhaps the escalating addition of zeroes to the rule may make it more effective. Future rule updates may include the 5000/300 rule, the 50000/3000 rule, etc. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Creeping Garden

On 13 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Creeping Garden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the film The Creeping Garden shows slime molds finding their way through a maze in search of food? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Creeping Garden. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Momentary block

Apologies for the momentary block, I meant to block the latest troll. Argh. Acroterion (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No, no thanks needed! Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

But I insist Acroterion. It was the shortest indef in wiki-history. It's kind of a record. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It was immediately clear that you'd reformed and repented, that you'd respect the norms and conventions of this collaborative community, that you'd only write GAs and better from now on, that you'd never take Jimbo's name in vain, blargh glug ... Bear in mind that my first action as an administrator in 2007 was to accidentally block myself. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I can vouch for that. Dr.K has a long history of disruption, but the clean slate starts now. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies for giving me a second chance. Btw, I was ready to request semiprotection of my talkpage through RFPP but I couldn't complete the report due to the momentary indef. I think you are clairvoyant and semiprotected my talkpage anyway. :) Thank you for that also. I'm glad Acroterion understood my immediate repentance and compliance with the wiki oath of conduct. I shudder to think what would have happened otherwise. :) I have to check his self-block to see if I still qualify for the shortest block in wiki-history. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I unblocked myself within the same minute, though I might have had an unfair advantage if I blocked myself at 12:46:01 and unblocked at 12:46:59. I was thinking of making it a condition of your unblock that you read the terms of service, but that seemed cruel. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I may still qualify for the shortest non self-block so I'll settle for that. As far as the terms of service, you are right. I may have preferred to have stayed blocked instead of reading them. I mean there is so much boring stuff I can do on a given day. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Greek Constitution of 1973

On 18 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Greek Constitution of 1973, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Greek Constitution of 1973 is the second in modern Greek history to have resulted from a failed coup by the Hellenic Navy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Greek Constitution of 1973. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Full Service (book)

I ran into the same editor who had disputes with others about Aaron Schock. He thinks of me as someone not able to cooperate with; he even said so in his user page. --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I checked perfunctorily some of the exchanges and I didn't like what I saw. There were some nasty personal attacks. I suggest you disengage from this editor and let the RfC take its course. Getting into a protracted argument with another editor is not a good idea, especially in a wiki and even less during an RfC. The community is bound to offer its opinion and this matter will be resolved because of that. No need for personal fights. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Did I make any nasty personal attacks, a protracted argument, or something? --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not the big ones. You didn't. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock for recent AIV

I rangeblocked 184.151.176.0/20. Hopefully this catches all of them. Thanks for reporting it to WP:AIV -- Samir 06:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't mention it Samir. It was my pleasure. Thank you for the rangeblock. Take care. Dr. K. 06:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Article about foreign irredendist concept as... Top-Importance Greek article?

Hello, Dr.K. I have stumped upon a very unusual finding, here, that I deemed worth bringing to other Greek moderator's attention, in case of it being just a mistake or accident. The article Greater Albania is classified as being Category: Top-importance Greek articles [13], which I find pretty weird, given the fact that other nationalist irredendist concepts which have existed in the past, or still exist today, like the United Macedonia or the Megali Idea, are not classified as such. Isn't this strange, given that this is just a nationalist concept, which is not officially supported by the Republic of Albania and Kosovo, or am I missing something here regarding the reason it is added into the list of Top-important Greek articles? --SilentResident (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made a Importance re-assessment of the article Greater Albania for the WikiProject Greece, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Greece/Assessment#Requests_for_assessment and at same time I filed a request for Importance re-assessment to be conducted from someone outside. Your opinion and advice is highly valued, and that is why I asked for it in the first place. Have a good day... --SilentResident (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@SilentResident: Hi SR. It is always nice talking to you. In this instance I think you know more than I do in this subject area so I will defer to your judgment. I think you made the right call given the background you provided. In the very unlikely case any problems arise let me know. Take care. Dr. K. 04:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :D --SilentResident (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed content

I removed some random comment from the request page. To where can I put that comment? --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It was already replied to by Cyberbot so it would have been ok if it had stayed on the page. Now that you removed it, you can leave a message to the editor requesting protection to tell him to submit a new, technically correct, report. Dr. K. 03:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It was put at "request to edit" section; Talk:Anita Sarkeesian was inaccessible to newly registered users. It didn't look like a request to edit to me. George Ho (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like a random comment. You did well to revert it. Dr. K. 03:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Rabauter

I agree with you -- it looks really strange, and I am not exactly sure what was going on. The other two accounts basically stopped activity after a while, and Rabauter started trolling. Of course, there were the talk page comments and all. This does convince me that they are linked somehow, but I am not sure how. GAB^Hello! 22:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi GAB. I think it may be a case of a few friends coordinating. Btw, thank you for your help in the SPI. All the best. Dr. K. 22:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That was my second guess. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 22:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock at ANI

Thanks. I'm banned from ANI myself (see note at the top of my page), but I'm glad The Unstopable 4G pinged the "corrupt meat puppet" User:Materialscientist, who blocked some of the IPs. I thought of blocking this one for egregious spelling errors (compare Unstopable at all) and for misleading username, since they're not well, really unstoppable. Feel free to tag them if you like — not that I think there's much practical benefit. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. I had forgotten about your voluntary ban from ANI. And I was wondering why you didn't post a message. :) Anyway, the socks have their own terminology which they apply to those who revert or block them. They also use their own corrupted version of English orthography, a trait shared with master Alexyflemming and the rest of the sock farm. For future reference I will tag the latest family as a separate farm, since Alexy is stale. Thank you and take care. Dr. K. 15:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Hi Dr.K. In summary, WP:BRD is when I make an edit and provide reason and no one reverts (assuming no-one disagrees) It stays. But if someone reverts my edit, I go to talk page for discussion. Right? Just want to make sure. (N0n3up (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC))

Hi N0n3up. Yes, your interpretation of BRD is correct. Best regards. Dr. K. 05:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsupported reverts

Hi Dr.K. The reason I asked the question about BOLD in my post above because user Snowded keeps reverting my edit without being concise about to why he keeps reverting. He always reverts my edits and lectures and forces me to go to talk page for even the smallest edit, yet he only does this to me and not other editors. No one has even disagreed with my edit, yet Snowded just uses any justifications he can to keep me from editing. Again, he does this with me, not other users. He never presented any valid arguments for the previous argument we had before the current one and in occasion had even used my block log to use against me instead of concentrating on the topic in hand. And accuses me of edit-warring, personal attacks and other new stuff he brings up to prevent me from doing any editing. You can see in his talk page, the article's talk page and the post I placed on DRN that I never made any personal attacks whatsoever, nor have I edit-warred as seen here that I never went ahead of the 3RR rule, but went to the talk page and discussed it as you can see. Nevertheless, Snowded brings up whatever he can to go against me and my edit by repeating or bringing new arguments that he never covered in the early phases to justify his case without even providing sources nor solid arguments. I came because you talked to me in the previous event, not because I wan't you to support me, but to show you the things Snowded is doing is going against all Wikipedia reasoning and want to seen I placed an edit following BOLD yet Snowded always tries to do whatever to undo my edits, when he doesn't do the same to other editors that made their contribution to the talk page. The first edit has been going on for days, and now that I make another edit, he disregards what I say without even reading what I wrote. (N0n3up (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC))

Hi N0n3up. I will check into this as soon as I have some free time later today. In the meantime, keep applying the discussion cycle of BRD by continuing the discussion without any further reversions. This way you will enhance your own position in any dispute resolution steps or any other noiceboard-related activity that may arise out of this dispute. Dr. K. 18:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw you commented on the previous matter, but now, it's to know whether to use "world power" or "global power". If look at the numbers, you'll see there is more on world than there is on global. (N0n3up (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC))

I tend to agree with your analysis. However it seems that the editors commenting there don't agree with your position. I would suggest waiting for a decision at DRN and then, if that fails, you can open an RfC. However, this seems like a small matter so I would not spend too much time on it if it continues without achieving a clear resolution. In other words, don't get too invested in it. Dr. K. 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the thanks, but why did you thank me? (N0n3up (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC))

For saying: This is my final statement until further notice, I also agree this had gone too far.. I see this statement as a recognition that the discussion needs some de-escalation. This is a very positive thing. Dr. K. 01:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. But my concern is that the decision reached by the "consensus" (Juanriley and Snowded) is technically incorrect, because I checked that "world power" is most often used in books to refer to the discussed topic [14], [15], and if you look at results from Google Scholar: [16][17] and Google: [18][19], you'll see that "world power" is most used than "global power". And since me and JuanRiley have a history of disputes going back to some months ago has obviously influenced him to launch himself into the discussion to simply screw me. Not to mention that I've been accused of forum shopping in my desk help post. And it all began when Snowded decided to simply hunt down my edits.. Only mines, not others. So you can see my situation here. I'm just letting you see the picture. (N0n3up (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC))

Your point about the equivalent term has merit. However, the absence of other editors supporting the alternative term may indicate that the difference is not great enough for editors to bother to make a comment. In that case and in the face of opposition it may be better to walk away from the conflict. Also trying to analyse the motives of the opposing editors is not helpful for many reasons starting with AGF. I know it is hard sometimes to AGF but if it were easy it wouldn't be one of the five pillars because everyone would be doing it without being prompted. Dr. K. 07:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right. It's best to leave it at the moment. So what should I do now? (N0n3up (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC))

It's up to you. You can just let it go. But if it really bothers you can open an RfC in the near future to let others voice their opinion. After the RfC is finished I suggest dropping the matter altogether. It's simply not worth your time at least imo. Don't forget to do things one at a time, i.e. one DRN, one RfC per turn. Otherwise you will be accused of FORUM shopping. Dr. K. 18:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dr.K. if only more users were honest like you. (N0n3up (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC))

Thank you very much N0n3up for your kind words. If you ever think that I can help in any way don't hesitate to ask me. Take care. Dr. K. 22:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Basil I

Would you be interested in giving your opinion concerning sources on the Basil I talk page? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kansas. Will do as soon as I come back. Take care. Dr. K. 18:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad view of Slavery

The article is very un-balanced and biased, I found out after User submitted a complaint, in the talk page. Manumission was never discouraged and the opposite was true after I checked it, it is encouraged. Someone is twisting Muhammad's hadith on giving gifts to discouraging manumission. The hadith I compiled and found are from the chapter called "Manumission of Slave", while the alleged hadith on manumission discouraged is from a chapter called "Gifts" especially the 16th section titled "A woman giving gifts to someone other than husband" Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok. No problem. Thank you Alexis. Dr. K. 07:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox views on Noah's Ark and Mt. Ararat

Hello! I'm currently rewriting the Mount Ararat article. As you may know, according to the most popular interpretation of the Old Testament, the supposed Noah's Ark landed on Mt. Ararat. Researching the topic, I found an article which states: The European tradition (accepted by most Western Christians today) places the ark on "Mount Ararat" in eastern Turkey[20]

The source implies that Eastern Orthodox Churches do not. Can you please look into the topic if you have time? Does the Greek Orthodox Church have any views on it?

Also, can you please find Genesis 8:4 in Greek and see if it says "mountains of Ararat" (as in most cases) or "mountains of Armenia" (as in the Vulgate). This website seems to say Ararat. --Երևանցի ^talk 13:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I will check it out and let you know. Take care. Dr. K. 19:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I checked the Greek wikipedia on Noah and it mentions Ararat. This blog mentions Genesis 8:4 in Greek and it says "mountains of Ararat": "Η Γένεση δεν λέει ότι η Κιβωτός κάθισε επάνω «στο βουνό Αραράτ», αλλά «στα βουνά του Αραράτ»". So I assume that the Orthodox Church is in full agreement with all the other dogmas on Noah's narrative but I didn't find any official Church positions on the subject. Dr. K. 01:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Երևանցի ^talk 07:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't mention it Yerevantsi. It was a pleasure. Take care. Dr. K. 14:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace

If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi BabbaQ. I checked it and I didn't find anything that needed fixing. Dr. K. 01:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your signature

Just a quick note to say I think your signature is clever. I can't understand Greek, but I do know the Greek alphabet and the words logos and praxis. Thanks for your many contributions to English Wikipedia! —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 06:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much GrammarFascist for your kind comments. As far as my signature, I am glad you understood the semantics behind its design. I have recently decided to change it so it is ironic to get kudos for a signature that I no longer use. But your kind words are appreciated all the same. :) Take care. Dr. K. 16:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, Dr. K. I'm glad I got to see the old one, though I suppose the one you're currently using is more accessible to a greater number of users. Best, GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again GrammarFascist. I think you are in the perfect wiki-demographic to appreciate my older signature. But as you so aptly stated, accessibility is also a good thing. :) I fully agree. Dr. K. 16:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bailo of Corfu

On 5 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bailo of Corfu, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Bailo of Corfu also administered the affairs of the Venetian dependencies of Butrinto and Lepanto? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bailo of Corfu. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Dr.K.. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi Dr. K, I hope you don't mind that I've sent you an email requesting your advice on how I should proceed in addressing a problem. I respect your clear-headed style. Carlstak (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Carlstak for your kind words which I really appreciate coming from an editor I greatly respect. I have replied. Take care. Dr. K. 19:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Dr.K.. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I hope you see my mail Dr.K. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alexis. I have replied. Best regards. Dr. K. 01:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C

I don't know my opinions of my own actions. I thought what I had to do: convince people to oppose a nomination. ... I kinda turned an ongoing-only nomination to a blurb nomination at Metrojet crash just to create opposition, which got disregarded. I thought there would have been no consensus, but administrators ignored the opposition and then posted the event with feeling what is "right" to them, although the whole posting thing looks illogical. Shall I explain more? --George Ho (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please. Dr. K. 14:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The event Metrojet flight (something) was nominated as ongoing event, and I added a blurb and then opposed the whole event as blurb and ongoing. I have been rebutted as well as other opposition side. I tried, but that annoyed them. My arguments got disregarded, and the event was posted as "Ongoing" anyway. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Template_talk:S-rel#Introduce two new parameters

There is a dicussion on how to fix the template:S-rel, which has used for many Oriental Orthodox bishops and many Eastern Orthodox Church bishops.

Please comment at Template_talk:S-rel#Introduce two new parameters. tahc ^chat 17:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tahc for the kind invitation but I do not specialise in templates. Best regards. Dr. K. 18:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pantaleone Barbo

Hello! Your submission of Pantaleone Barbo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Seattle (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lorenzo de Monacis

Hello! Your submission of Lorenzo de Monacis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete!

You can remove a member page ManlyBoys of me? ManlyBoys (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Marie Serneholt

If you want to, please take a look at the article Marie Serneholt, which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Pantaleone Barbo

On 16 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pantaleone Barbo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1389 Venetian ambassador Pantaleone Barbo fell victim to a robbery while on a diplomatic mission to Hungary? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pantaleone Barbo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lorenzo de Monacis

On 18 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lorenzo de Monacis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Venetian ambassador Lorenzo de Monacis defended Hungarian queens Mary and Elizabeth from murder charges by writing a poem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lorenzo de Monacis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way

I, as a Turk, have nothing against Greeks. In fact, my friends and I listen to Greek music all the time in the office. -Dominator1453 (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nikos Foskolos

Hello! Your submission of Nikos Foskolos at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Human3015^TALK 14:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I did not mean to ignite the flames on that article, "Ancient Macedonian Language." The user, Judist, provided the proper citation needed for a Wikipedia article. I recommend keeping his revision for the sake of providing a balanced and short summary of why the classification of the language is complicated. If needed, please do bring this up to the other (if there are any) editors. Lastly, I am not a "sock" of that user. He/She has an altogether different IP address. Please do not block mine. I only wish to provide useful information to this article. -Thank you 76.2.64.224 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Nick

Thank you anon for your clarification. Regarding Judist's edit, as I have explained on your talk, s/he removed text supported by a reliable and recent source stating that: ""and the recent epigraphic discoveries in the Greek region of Macedonia, such as the Pella curse tablet, suggest that ancient Macedonian was a variety of the North Western Ancient Greek dialects". Judist then added more text about Illyrian, Thracian and Macedonian languages. Coupled with the blanking of the epigraphic text and source, Judist's overall edit was POV and unbalanced. That is why I reverted it. This user is currently blocked for edit-warring his POV across many such articles and for following the edits of his perceived opponents to unrelated articles just to cause trouble. You have made few edits so I thought you were his sock when you reverted. But I will take your explanation in good faith that you are not his sock. Btw, I'm not an admin so I cannot block your account. Dr. K. 17:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. Regarding that edit, perhaps there is a way to merge those 2 viewpoints in the same paragraph for a more detailed and concise explanation. -Nick

You are very welcome Nick. Thank you for your message. As far as merging, I am against the idea because of the reasons given by Athenean at the talkpage of the article just a few days ago. Dr. K. 19:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#Armenian issue

Please be informed that I have opened a dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. -Dominator1453 (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dominator1453: Thank you Dominator. Please do not reply to this message as you are currently topic-banned from this topic but I spoke to the admin involved for a possible reconsideration of your ban. Please stand by. Dr. K. 03:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

GFriend

Why did you revert this edit by 양념파닭? This file doesn't violate copyright. File:여자친구(GFRIEND) 러시아 문화 페스티벌 인천 연안부두 해양광장 18.jpg Please read Commons' discription carefully.--Namoroka (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Nikos Foskolos

On 9 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nikos Foskolos, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Greek screenwriter and director Nikos Foskolos has been called the "Goldfinger of commercial shows"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nikos Foskolos. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Old Fortress, Livorno

On 9 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Old Fortress, Livorno, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that on 2 April 1662, the Old Fortress of Livorno was the location of an experiment designed to test Galileo's principle of the independence of motions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Old Fortress, Livorno. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Stuck again

Hi Dr.K. Long time no talk. I just wanted to let you know I'm back and wan't to thank you again for your messages. Although I'm back, I'm afraid not in a good start. As I've made a simple edit and made a discussion. Snowded is also back, and he seems to have stalked me since I left a post here and is starting to somehow want to start the whole fuzz that happened before in the article British Empire if you remember and not to mention, threats. At this point, I'm not sure what to do. Heres where it's currently happening [21]. Sorry to bother you, but I really don't know what to do about his behavior. (N0n3up (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

N0n3up

Are you actually mentoring the above? I agreed I would leave him to other editors to track but this and this are problematic to say the least. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know pointing out errors and having a descent discussion were problematic actions. Also I would prefer if you didn't refer to me as a "the" but according to my name. Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

Engaging in a content discussion is not the issue ----Snowded ^TALK 08:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. (N0n3up (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

DYK for Monument of the Four Moors

On 19 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monument of the Four Moors, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the chained Moors of the Monument of the Four Moors (pictured) symbolise the four corners of the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monument of the Four Moors. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings

	🍁 Season's greetings from Canada 🎄
	Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for everything you do to maintain, improve, and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dianna: Thank you very much Dianna for your kind words and the wonderful greetings from such a great country. :) Best of the Season to you too and a Happy New Year! Cheers, Dr. K. 07:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Visibility Zero

On 23 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Visibility Zero, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Visibility Zero. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 12:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Frohe Weihnachten 2015

Have a relaxing holiday and thank you all your work herein this past year. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Danke schön Kierzek. Frohe Weihnachten und Frohes neues Jahr to you also. :) Thank you for your kind words and for everything you do here. It is always nice talking to you. Take care. Dr. K. 01:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays :)

Hi Dr.K! I just want to wish you a merry Christmas and happy New Years. I hope your wishes come true this year. I also want to thank you for being helpful, patient and kind with me. Happy Holidays :-) (N0n3up (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC))

You are very welcome N0n3up and thank you for your kind comments. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too. Dr. K. 09:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas from Australia my Greek friend! All the best for ya! Luxure Σ 10:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Luxure. Merry Christmas to you too and a Happy and prosperous New Year! Take care. Dr. K. 11:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Khronye pola! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna:. Efharisto poly Iryna. It is very nice talking to you, especially during this season. Have a Merry Christmas and a Wonderful New Year! Take care. Dr. K. 22:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bzuk. My best wishes to you and yours for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Take care. Dr. K. 22:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dave: Thank you very much Dave. My best wishes to you and yours for a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! Thank you also for all the great work you are doing on the project. :) Take care. Dr. K. 23:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Καλά Χριστούγεννα to you

and a Happy New Year, too! --T*U (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@T*U: Thank you so much T*U. It is always nice talking to an old friend especially at this time of year. My best wishes to you and yours for a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! Take care. Dr. K. 22:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Dear Dr. K., thank you for the warm wishes! I really like the picture on your card, as well as all the pictures on this page. Wishing you and yours a wonderful holiday season! Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Yoninah for your kind wishes. I also really appreciate your nice words about my pictures. Take care and all my best wishes to you and yours. Dr. K. 21:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Best of the Season to you too

		Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
		Thank you for taking the time remembering me Dr.K! Very much appreciated :) I hope you have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! --Seric2 (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Seric: Thank you very much for your kind wishes Seric and the nice Christmas card. It is always very nice talking to an old friend. Thank you also for all the great work you are doing here. Take care. Dr. K. 21:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Socks on Talk:Leonardo da Vinci

Hey Dr. K.,

I wanted to make you aware that I have already requested a checkuser to verify if those are socks or not. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SupaPhly The vandalism seems to be a result of a joke made by Game Grumps yesterday. If you want to add Heytherefuzzybear to the request please feel free to do so. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Ha. We have a larger sockfarm. I was wondering about that. Thank you Stabila711 for letting me know. I'll add the sock to your SPI. Best regards. Dr. K. 20:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexi: Thank you very much Alexi. Best of the season to you and yours and a Happy New year! Dr. K. 00:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

why you removing khairabad sitapur information

why you removing khairabad sitapur information. We live in khairabad we know is town. What Wikipedia need to verify the facts. Please let us know. Shadabxp (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Shadabxp: You need to use reliable sources for all the information you are trying to add to the article. Please see WP:RS. Also you cannot add names to articles that are not articles themselves. Dr. K. 17:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. – Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen: Happy New Year to you too Cullen! Thank you very much for the wonderful card and the nice greetings. :) Take care. Dr. K. 07:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace

Thank you for your support and wishes, returned with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda: Thank you very much Gerda for the nice card. May the New Year be Happy, Prosperous and Peaceful for you and yours. Take care. Dr. K. 17:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Click on bell for the soft sound of peace (and jest) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Dr.K.!

Happy New Year!

Dr.K.,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@Dave: Thank you very much Dave. My best wishes to you and yours for a Happy and Prosperous New Year! Keep up the good work. :) Take care. Dr. K. 18:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You're more than welcome and thank you so much :), If by keeping up the good work you mean pissing everyone off then ofcourse I'll do my absolute best

, Thanks and you keep the great work too :) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Mauthausen

Καταρχάς, καλή χρονιά, με υγεία κι ευτυχία! Second, really nice work on the Mauthausen Ballad! The Guardian has a nice obituary on Kambanellis which might be useful to flesh this out further. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Επίσης Κώστα. Ευχαριστώ πολύ. Thank you also very much for the reference, the DYK review and your kind words about the ballad. I'll check the reference and add it to the article. Ευτιχισμένος ο Καινούργιος Χρόνος και ό, τι επιθυμείς. Dr. K. 18:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

By remarkable coincidence, a friend sent me this today: Ο Αντώνης in an Afghan rendition. It seems to be quite popular there, and this reminds me, IIRC, back in 2001, there were TV shots of Northern Alliance troops entering Kabul under this tune. Seems kind of appropriate to use this song to celebrate liberation from a regime like the Taliban... Best, Constantine ✍ 20:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It gets even better. :) I had seen the news about the use of the song about the Afghans and the Kurds but I had forgotten about it. Your comment reminded me of that and I just added it to the article. Thank you very much for that Costa. Take care. Dr. K. 21:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Promotional edit?

Hi Dr.K! I hope you had a great holiday :) I'm sorry to bother you though with this question on editing promotions. I spotted this edit in Uber, which looked to me like a promotional edit. I reverted it, then reverted myself after the agreement of last time. I just want to know if this is legit or promotional. (N0n3up (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC))

Hi N0n3up. No problem at all. You are very welcome to ask me anything at any time. I checked the edit you mentioned and I don't think it's promotional. I actually think the change the IP made was constructive and added some new information that was neutral in tone. Your decision to leave it in place was correct. I also take this opportunity to wish you Happy New Year! All the best to you. Dr. K. 06:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I photographed it from a video why piracy?

OK, I photographed it from a video why piracy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXEIQRtbNO8&list=PLV8QCeBgXalYjDoo5ldmbVc4LzCzDSPO5&index=7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibiem2010 (talk • contribs)

The video is not yours so you are not allowed to photograph it and then claim the photo is yours. Its copyright isn't yours. It belongs to the owner of the video. Dr. K. 07:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Mauthausen Trilogy

On 6 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mauthausen Trilogy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the "Mauthausen Trilogy", composed by Mikis Theodorakis, has been described as the "most beautiful musical work ever written about the Holocaust"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mauthausen Trilogy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious again, your interesting music! I mentioned it on Portal:Germany.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Gerda for this elegant gift and for adding the article to the portal. Your comments are an honour. Take care. Dr. K. 13:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this revision history

Hello Dr.K., a happy New Year to you! Hope you had a good one, first of all.

I was wondering, as far as I can see, the article was stating in the lede "(..)and Persians", prior to his edits, or am I mistaken? I just took a revision here long before any of his socks edited it ([22]) and it still stated the list including Persians, and not Assyrians. Later, some days ago as we speak, it was changed to Assyrians by Athenean,[23] and the sock did some warring with him and others, before being indeffed.

Could you clarify this up for me, perhaps, if you have time? Also, didn't the Achaemenids have a presence in Anatolia dating from about the earliest days dating from the establishment of the empire (in the latter half of the 6th century BC)? So shouldn't that, including the Assyrians, stay there as well? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid you did not go back far enough. The last clean version is from 13 August 2014 and it was edited by KazekageTR. This version does not have any mention of Persians. If you press newer revision, after the one by Kazekage, that's when you get the blocked sock Eldarion of Gondor and Arnor. More and more socks appear after that as the discovered ones get blocked and the new ones activate. As far as the presence of the Persians etc., if legit, it should be hashed out at the article talkpage. I hope this helps. Dr. K. 15:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason I changed it to Assyrians is because the sentence says "inhabited". As far as I know, while the Persian empire ruled Anatolia for several centuries, there never were large Persian-inhabited areas in Anatolia. Kurds, perhaps, but no Persians as far as I can tell. In contrast, southeastern Anatolia has been inhabited by Assyrians since ancient times (e.g. Tur Abidin region). I'm guessing the reason the sock kept edit-warring over it is that as a Turkish ultranationalist, he is allergic to any mention of Assyrians. Athenean (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you Athenean. In fact I found the original edit that added the Persians. As you can see, the Persians and a bunch of other peoples were added without any additional source to support the new material, although Ionians and Aeolians are well-established as native peoples. Dr. K. 16:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks (you too, @Athenean:), that explains everything. Persian ruled areas, sure, for very long. Even the Kingdom of Pontus as we know, which was founded long after the fall of the Achaemenids, was of Persian descent. But no, indeed, as far as I know, large native ethnic communities were never established there. Only with the advent of the Safavids, noteable communities were established there, and that only in the eastern-most areas (of which several areas remained under Persian rule until they were ceded to Russia per the 1828 Treaty of Turkmenchay), such as Igdir. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.:, I forgot to say this as well, regarding the same point we discussed. We established that the CU blocked sock erraneously changed that stuff, but shouldn't the lede contain even half a sentence regarding the many centuries-long Iranian empire history in Anatolia? (not in the sentence regarding "native ethnic groups", but right after it). Its much older than the Turkic history of the region, for one thing, and had a large impact. What's your opinion? - LouisAragon (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Louis: First, Louis, my pet-peeve. You don't have to ping me when on my talkpage because I get pinged with the message notice automatically when you leave me a message here. :) Regarding the sock stuff, the facts are as you describe. As far as the sentence at the lead you propose, I have no objection. Thank you for asking. However I cannot presume to be the consensus-maker in that article. So perhaps you could ask at the talkpage, if you think such a question may be necessary. Or be bold and see if you get reverted per BRD. Needless to say I will not revert because I agree with your point. Best regards and Happy New Year! Dr. K. 21:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I know, I just added a ping notification as I had placed another comment like 1,5 hrs prior to it. ;-) Just in case you might have had missed it. No, obviously I know that no individual person can be the consensus-maker by itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway as we were having a related discussion and you're well-established regarding the articles of these topics. Extra discussing never hurts, if its of actual usage that is. Yeah, I was myself thinking about making a bold edit as well, and I just did it as we speak. Thanks for your best wishes back! ))) Btw, feel free to let me know, if there are any specifically and only Greek/Byzantine/Roman-related articles on your watchlist that are in the most dire need of some proper expansion and referencing. Preferably Byzantine actually, but the other two are fine as well. Whenever I'll find myself having some more time, I want to focus a bit more on this scope, namely. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

More ideas for Mauthausen Trilogy

Congrats on creating and DYK-ing this article! I have some info on my bookshelf that I think could be relevant. What do you think of this link? It suggests there were really two versions of the Mauthausen work, one first performed in 1965, and issued as a record in 1966, called 'Ballad of Mauthausen', and another one from 1995, called variously 'Mauthausen Trilogy' or 'Mauthausen Cantata'. The 1995 work has 13 musical tracks (not 4) when you include the versions in English and Hebrew. Something else I've wondered about is if there was any print publication of the four poems by Kambanellis. Haven't see one so far. The poems are not in Kambanellis' memoir 'Mauthausen,' at least, not in the English version. Also, I'm wondering how the term 'Mauthausen Trilogy' came about. What are the three parts? Thanks for any comment, EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ed: Hi Ed. First, thank you very much for you kind words which I really appreciate coming from an editor I greatly respect. Second, thank you also for all your help and suggestions throughout the creation processs of this article. Personally, I am very glad that after so many years of knowing each other and working together we work on an article rather than an administrative-related event or crisis. :)

Your questions are very interesting and I contemplated them myself. Your link goes to the Ballad of Mauthausen/Six Songs. These are two separate works. The ballad of Mauthausen is still the four arias followed by another unrelated collection of six songs. The Ballad songs are the same four arias that are described in the article. Perhaps we can add these editions to the article.

I was also wondering about the trilogy/four songs dichotomy. I think this Google book gives the answer. It describes the first aria, "Song of Songs" and then says: "the second and third songs of the Mauthausen Cantata tell of hard labor and escape". That's the "Andonis" and "Runaway" arias. Then the book says: "The final song "When the War Ends is a fantasy of the lovers' union." As you see there are four arias, but only three narrative units: The lovers, the hard labour and the escape, i.e. the trilogy.

Your questions helped answer this apparent discrepancy between the title and the number of songs. So thank you for that too. As far as the publication of the lyrics by Kambanellis, I haven't found any evidence that they were published in a book. Finally, if you have any material from your book that you think you can add to the article, please go ahead. It would be great for the article and I would be very glad working with you. Take care and Happy New Year! Dr. K. 21:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Words and sheet music for Asma asmaton are found in the work by Jerry Silverman that you cited, "The undying flame: ballads and songs of the Holocaust", though the Greek words are romanized. I re-listened to the 1966 performance of the four songs, and it's great. Not certain yet that the 1995 lives up to it. The fourth song, 'When the war is over', has bouncy, upbeat music but the words are about a girl with frozen hands. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. I had forgotten about the sheet music in the reference. It is nice to have the song in such a form. I had listened to a few youtube performances of Asma Asmaton but not of the other arias. Your analysis is interesting and I will purchase the editions you mention to compare them. I think the fourth part has upbeat music because it is a fantasy reflecting a positive outlook but the lyrics about the frozen hands mean that the girl may not have survived. Dr. K. 06:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the sheet music for all four songs can be ordered from Schott. See catalog link. The original Mauthausen cantata seems to be given catalog number AST 168, according to a system for numbering Theo's works I found at http://www.mikis-theodorakis.net/index.php/en/complete-catalogue/76-part-vii. See also AST 258, 'Mauthausen - Choral'. This seems to be an arrangement for choir that was published in Athens in 1983. The entry says "First performance: Thessaloniki, 1983". You can hear in the 1995 performance that Farantouri's voice is backed up by choir singers, so possibly AST 258 is what was performed live. The 'Mauthausen Trilogy' CD with the red cover has additional tracks for other languages that must not have existed yet in 1983 or even 1995. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ed: Thank you very much for this information Ed. I didn't know these details. In fact while writing the article I was wondering why Farandouri was also singing the replies in the lyrics even though a chorus was clearly more appropriate. I think you should do the honours and add these details to the article. Dr. K. 20:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ending your mentorship?

I haven't asked you any advice for so long. In fact, I attempted to end Magog's mentorship, but then I decide to rescind. Then I am asking you to either continue or end your mentorship with me. I can still ask you for advice without prejudice. I think I can do well without your need very much. Thank you for your service. --George Ho (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem George. I think you are doing quite well. You've come a long way since the early days. Feel free to ask me whenever you think I may be helpful to you. Best regards and Happy New Year! Dr. K. 06:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I crossed your name out. Wish you best. George Ho (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you George. Likewise. Dr. K. 20:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

May we recommend...

If you're really a doctor (or even if you're not) you may find my pet article of interest. After reading it, you'll see that I'm obviously NOTHERE, like Nakon said. EEng (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi EEng. Just by being here, on my talkpage, you just announced to me that your unblock has happened. I am very pleased to see that the wiki-universe has unfolded as it should and I thank the editors and admins who made this happen. With this out of the way, yes, I am a doctor, but not a medical one. But one doesn't have to be a doctor of any kind to appreciate your excellent and very accessible article which I enjoyed editing, in a minor way, once or twice in the past. I know that content editors are not always appreciated but applying NOTHERE to them with added features such as no prior warning, and userpages blanked and templated, definitely shows a total lack of appreciation. Not sure how or why it happened. Thankfully, the community acted fast enough in this case. Keep up your excellent work EEng. Best regards. Dr. K. 20:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words about the article, and forgive me for overlooking your contributions to it. I'm not sure if you know the crap I had to go through for it, though; in fact, just about the time you made your first edit it was seriously being proposed that I be banned from the topic and the article scrapped and rewritten [24]. If you'll Email this user I can email you back some unpublished research on the subject you may enjoy reading (including a fun and unexpected literary tie-in to Gage). EEng (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You are very welcome EEng, but my edits were so insignificant that there is no reason at all to remember them. I had seen proposals at the talkpage of Phineas Gage about changing the citation format but I hadn't seen the proposals to dynamite the article or to topic ban you. Not sure why such drastic proposals were made, but the article is very well-written and complete and in no need for such actions. By the time I edited the article the editing interface was no different than that of an average well-cited article. Since then I haven't seen any other proposals so I hope that was the end of all these problems for you. Thank you very much for offering the additional material. It sounds very interesting. I'll send you an email. Best regards. Dr. K. 02:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting to the age where I forget things... did we do this? (It's hard to search my email for "Dr. K".) E Eng 00:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Lol. Yes indeed. Fascinating material. Thank you very much EEng. Take care. Dr. K. 00:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh goody, glad you liked it. On the other topic, disagreement may yet arise again [25] so please keep on your watchlist, since the more voices the better. E Eng 01:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sending the material to me. It was very informative, interesting and, needless to say, very well written. I'll keep an eye just in case my opinion can be of any value. Dr. K. 02:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"very well written" -- Well, as you can see (in the "Remarkably" and Stodgy writing sections) the opinion of one of WP's leading know-it-alls is "shit writing... stodgy and constipated". Unfortunately people like this control the FA machinery, which is why most people who actually care about the reader's experience in reading don't bother with FA. E Eng 04:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That's quintessential Wikipedia editing. This place wouldn't be what it is without these spats. Only here you can get into such heated discussions over such minor phrasing alterations. On the positive side, this is a form of tribute to your editing; out of a mammoth article such as yours, these two minor editing beefs are minor perturbations compared to the size of the rest of your edits to the article. Dr. K. 20:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Cram101

An interesting problem has been highlighted by Doc James at AN (permalink). Apparently Cram101 publishes "books" artificially created from Wikipedia text. A very quick look makes it appear they add links to the e-book which hapless students can click to pay $0.99 to take a quiz—what a brilliant scam! I looked at the history of one page mentioned in the report, and this diff shows who added it, so I thought I'd better alert you. What a mess. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you John. I saw that removal by Doc James yesterday since I have the article watchlisted. That was one reference out of 15 that I had added to the article at the time. I didn't pay too much attention to the title "study guide" and as they referenced Paul Krugman in the reference title, I thought it was legit. I also saw Doc James's report at AN. It was a one-off and I haven't used any such type of reference since or even before that time. Dr. K. 01:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I only mentioned it because it would have been easy to miss. While admiring the entrepreneurial skill of the scammers, it looks like artificial intelligence will not be used only for Good! It's going to be quite difficult in the future to trust anything. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem John. I appreciate the heads up, regardless, especially from an editor I greatly respect, such as yourself. AI, it may claim to be. But I will not worry, until the AI robots not only gather the information but also publish it themselves and then try to sell it under assumed names resembling legit scientists. Let's hope that day is still far in the future. Dr. K. 02:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

In the "Revolt of the army" section at Alexander's page it lists Gangaridai as part of modern day Bangladesh. That is incorrect, it belongs to Bengal region, both Bangladesh and modern day Indian state of West Bengal. Can you please help in changing this incorrect info, it should be Bengal region. (2600:1001:B026:A517:E1BA:BCB0:C21F:63D0 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

Hi anon. I'll have a look as soon as I have some time a bit later. Thank you for the heads-up. Dr. K. 19:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to all things Greek LoveMonkey (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much LoveMonkey. Your kind gesture is really appreciated. It is very nice talking to you after such a long time. Happy New Year by the way. Take care. Dr. K. 19:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Panagiotis Kone

"1. Your advice to Alexikoua did not contain any mention to keep edit-warring, so please follow your own advice."

I am following my own advice. [26] I am discussing, he is ignoring. So, what's your point again?

"2. Do not restore sock edits."

1. Simply because he's accused of being a sock does not mean he is one. 2. Even if he is a sock, does it disqualify the sources he put fourth?

"3. Adding Kone is of Albanian origin in the first sentence of the life section is WP:UNDUE."

I find it kind of convenient that you claim that it's WP:UNDUE, because you were actively editing the page when it said that "His ethnic Greek parents" in the second sentence. Are you implying that it's ok if it says that he's of Albanian origin in the 2nd sentence? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

First, announcing Kone's Albanian origin in the very first sentence of his life section, before even mentioning where he was born or describing who his parents were, is an obviously bad editing practice. So regardless of its factual accuracy, the edit does not belong there. I hope you agree with me on that.

Alexikoua is still discussing as far as I'm aware. So edit-warring while advising him to discuss doesn't look consistent.

As you know, suspected socks are detected using the DUCK principle. This editor is a duck. An SPI could be opened in the future but sometimes it depends on how disruptive this sock becomes in the interim. Sock edits should be reverted on sight, even if they are constructive, so that the sock does not get rewarded and continues socking without repercussions.

Your sentence I find it kind of convenient that you claim... lacks AGF. But even so, I will reply that his Greek origin was in the second sentence. That's different from being in the first sentence. Again, I hope that you agree that announcing any type of origin in the first sentence is a bad editorial choice. Dr. K. 18:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's start over.

1. No, I don't necessarily agree with that. [27] With that said, why not fix the issue rather than deleting it?

2. Let me be clear here. I've raised several concerns with the article. Again, see the section under "incorrect translation" on the talk page, Alexikoua has not responded since Dec 23. There is an ongoing discussion with regards to the other issues I've raised, but on this matter there is no active discussion since Alexikoua has ignored it. This has not stopped him from editing though. So, who's in the wrong here?

3. Policies are certainly clear on the matter: "Do not ever call someone a sock puppet on an article or user talk page or in any edit summary. Doing so is often considered uncivil and can actually get you in trouble." [28]

4. Since you are OK with it being in the second sentence, rather than deleting it you should have moved it. Don't you think?

DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If an editor passes the duck test then s/he can be called a sock and reverted without waiting for an SPI. This is routinely done. Of course, this should be done only when the editor is strongly suspected of being a duck. In this case the editor qualifies as a rather loud duck, irrespective of if an SPI has been opened yet or not.

All the other objections you have fall under the ongoing discussion on the talkpage. I haven't read the exact details of that discussion so I can't comment on the content or on who commented on a thread but not the other. I know that there is enough doubt about his origin, whatever that may mean, that I wouldn't restore anything that is being actively disputed. In any case, your advice to Alexikoua was sound because it de-emphasised edit-warring. The point I was making was that edit-warring is not the answer. You recognised that point by advising another editor not to do it, so it doesn't take much to follow that idea. Dr. K. 21:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If an editor passes the duck test then s/he can be called a sock and reverted without waiting for an SPI. Could you point me to a page where this is explained in detail? You see, from my perspective it does not make sense. Because, on the page I provided earlier it says: "Do not ever call someone a sock puppet on an article or user talk page or in any edit summary". You're instead saying that it's conditional, i.e. "Don't call someone a sock puppet unless there's strong evidence for it". There's an obvious contradiction here. Let me clarify further, if you don't mind. One can essentially accuse new editors of being socks, and make reversions on aforementioned basis regardless of whether these accusations are true or not. Not only does this provoke new editors who're unlikely to be too acquainted with the rules and policies of wikipedia to unknowingly break policies which will subsequently be used against them, it's also analogous to argumentum ad hominem. Would it not be better to focus on the material instead of the editor? (case in point: Alexikoua has accused me of being a sock).

When you reverted me you did in fact add "in Albania" [29], which is being disputed. Alexikoua has not written anything with regards to this point since Dec 23. That's why I reminded Alexikoua: 1. Discuss. 2. Edit. If he intends to add "in Albania", this should be preceded by discussion. As of right now, his edit stands even though he's not discussed the issue since Dec 23. He's made several revisions without discussing it. How do you think this looks from my point of view? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexikoua's edit does not stand as it was added. Mondiad added some more material to balance it with another POV. As far as analysing WP:SOCK on my talk, this will not happen. I already replied to your points in that regard. If you need more details you should ask on the policy talkpage. Sorry, but I can't help you further on that. Dr. K. 23:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Btw, the duck in question, Lostrigot has indeed been blocked as a CU-confirmed sock. Dr. K. 01:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You claimed that you wouldn't restore anything that is actively being disputed, but this is exactly what you did when you added "in Albania" (Alexikoua's edit).[30] Can we agree on that, or am I mistaken here?

I will raise my concerns on the policy talkpage. For what it's worth, the link you provided does not support that it's OK to accuse someone of being a sock. But maybe that is the convention on Wikipedia, I don't know. And it does not matter if Lostrigot has been blocked now. Both you and Athenean accused him of being a sock before there even was a SPI. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be an SPI if the sock is obvious enough. The sock was obvious enough that it was blocked without an SPI. And to cause a sock to be blocked, with or without an SPI, you have to call him/her what s/he is, i.e. a WP:SOCK. How else would the sock be stopped and blocked? This was the obvious sock of the notorious sockmaster Rolandi+ who has been creating socks and causing disruption for a long time and had to be stopped by calling him/her what it was. Nothing "accusatory" about that. As far as the rest of the stuff, you were restoring the Lostrigot/Rolandi+ obvious sock farm edits which were disputed and I have already explained why. I will not repeat myself as to why I reverted you. That's where it ends. Dr. K. 16:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

And to cause a sock to be blocked, with or without an SPI, you have to call him/her what s/he is, i.e. a WP:SOCK. How else would the sock be stopped and blocked? Reporting an editor who you believe to be a sock is not the same as accusing said person directly of being a sock in an edit summary. The former I fully understand. The latter is described under "what NOT to do". [31]

As far as the rest of the stuff, you were restoring the Lostrigot/Rolandi+ obvious sock farm edits which were disputed and I have already explained why. I will not repeat myself as to why I reverted you. That's where it ends. Apart from the edit I restored I also made an edit to the article that was "entirely mine". You reverted this as well. This is why I bring up your claim that you didn't restore anything that was actively being disputed. That's all.

There's no need for you to get frustrated. We are discussing it in a civil manner, aren't we? I apologize if i came off as abrasive in the beginning, but to me it looked like you and Athenean were taking sides. Hence my reaction. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no need for you to get frustrated. Please do not attribute things to me that come out of your imagination. This is a not-so subtle form of trying to diminish my clear, logical and calm arguments. I will repeat this for the last time: If a sock is obvious you call him/her for what it is: a sock. No amount of wiki-lawyering will change that. As far as the content issue I already explained it so I will not elaborate further. Dr. K. 19:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

At it again

Hi Dr.K. Remember our discussion here in regards to the discussion in the British Empire talk page? Well after the discussion we remember in the talk page, others began to talk about it after the previous discussions, in which I separated in this sub-section in the talk page in here. What do you think?, since I don't know what to do know. (N0n3up (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC))

Hi N0n3up. I see an editor supports your position but given that others objected in the past it may a bit too early to act on the support you just received regarding the proposed terminology. Just to be on the safe side, I would wait longer for more comments on the subject. Dr. K. 06:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll wait till about a week. If no one responds, I'll make a move. Although not everyone disagreed with me in the past, there were others who agreed, it was just the constant sophistry of the two editors whom I had a bad history with that was getting in the way. Anyways, is a week okay? (N0n3up (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC))

Apparently, things took a turn here. (N0n3up (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC))

I think an RfC should do it. Just make sure you phrase it neutrally. If you need any help let me know. Dr. K. 03:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, this time consensus support my argument in the talk page. Although Snowded still doesn't seem satisfied. (N0n3up (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC))

I checked rather briefly but I can only see another editor supporting your proposal recently. One recent support is not enough, ergo my proposal for an RfC. Dr. K. 05:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've made my last argument in the talk page, it things continue to be hazy, i'll do the Rfc. (N0n3up (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC))

I'm sorry Dr.K, had to tell him, and this time its not about the topic in hand. Snowded's attitude was getting out of hand regarding various edits of mine, and apparently I'm not the only one. (N0n3up (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC))

Hi N0n3up. Let's look at this from its good side. You made excellent progress since you were on the brink last time. You survived the 0 revert restriction, you discuss, people agree with you, you go through RfCs etc. Nicely done. Other editors would not have persevered as you did. That speaks volumes about your dedication to the project. Now we have a remaining interpersonal problem. This problem is small in comparison to what you have overcome. How to solve it? Put some distance, disengage. Don't respond to everything you read which provokes you to reply. Try this approach. Let's see where it will take you. Then we can refine the plan further. Dr. K. 04:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate it Dr.K. Yes, I admit I may get easily provoked, but yes I'll simply try to ignore it. Although Snowded's attitude doesn't make it easy [32]. Snowded is just one of two editors that have been trolling round my edits, and I don't think the other one will be doing so any time soon. Again, I wan't to thank you for being so understanding and helpful. In regards to the Talk:British Empire problem, I've opened an rfC here: [33], let's see how it goes. (N0n3up (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC))

You are very welcome N0n3up. As far as the conflicts, nobody said it was going to be easy. But disengagement is the only realistic alternative at the moment. This approach will maximise the chances for peace and calm, which is the thing needed the most right now. I wish you good luck with the RfC. Take care. Dr. K. 06:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The Decline of Wikipedia

I must say Dr K that when I started in 2005 I had hopes for the idea of epistemic libertarianism. That knowledge would be freely shared and available and hopefully in such a way as to have it for understanding. I don't see that here. I see a very hostile work environment I see WP:DENY. So much so that I am very weary of creating a list of articles that I wanted to contribute which would then be either deleted for various pedantic and bureaucratic reasons or edited to stubs rather than full fledged articles. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration. In your area, especially, there is a lot of controversy and antagonism. I guess it goes with the territory. But you shouldn't give up trying to create articles, although, given the difficult area, I would advise caution and going slow. As a final remark I would add that WP:DENY applies to trolls only, so the current version of that essay does not apply to article creation. :) Dr. K. 05:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This is some good advise I really am having a time with it and accessing if any contributing at all is of any benefit at all. But your words are words of wisdom, wisdom indeed. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SpecialVituzzu

Hi Dr.K., FYI (and FYI @Johnuniq:) it was the so-called "feet feticist" (or "selfie shoes") long-term abuser, I have already locked/checked/blocked the relevant this account + the underlying ip. Thank (both of) you for your reverts. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Grazie Vituzzu for letting me know. I started a mini SPI when I spotted that the IP you locked was making the same type of edits as the master and then saw the master account imitating your name and userpage. Glad to know you locked this vandal troll globally. Arrivederci. Dr. K. 17:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The usage of the name SkanderBeg and jihad in the same sentence does not make any sense.

In the article about "The Holocaust in Albania" it is written in the 1943–45 section among others these sentences. "...Composed of ethnic Albanians, it was named after Albanian national hero George Kastrioti Skanderbeg, who fought the Ottoman Turks in the 15th century. Members took a religious oath using the Quran, pledging "jihad against unbelievers".... this is weird to say the least because Skanderbeg was a defender of christianity against ottoman empire in the 15th century and a group of people that claim jihad to other (this is another point to talk about since in 1945 there were no such thing as jihad in albanian territories) cannot name their division after an "Athleta Christie" who was granted only by the pope. So, long story short the usage of the term jihad in this article distorts factual history. Is this a reason to edit that article may I ask? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan noli (talk • contribs) 02:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I objected to the wholesale removal of multiple sources and a paragraph. If you found some objectionable material you can correct it. But before you remove more material you should propose it on the talkpage first. Dr. K. 02:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know the procedures to edit a wiki page, but why it is not possible to remove material that is incorrect and logically wrong? Fan noli (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

We just talked about the jihad part and I told you that you could remove it. The rest of the paragraph is a big piece and doesn't look illogical at first glance. So if you want to remove it you should talk about it on the article's talk. Dr. K. 02:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Removed only those specific parts. Fan noli 04:03, 31 January 2016 (CET)

Thank you, Fan, for your understanding. Best regards. Dr. K. 04:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Socks, etc.

Thanks for dealing with our friend, the foot vandal. At the risk of sounding like a total amateur -- since I am starting to deal with more and more spi cases (and may apply to become a trainee clerk in the future) -- what advice on sock-hunting might you have to offer? Thanks, GAB^Hello! 02:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You are very welcome GAB. Thank you also for letting me know about the original master. You show enough talent and knowledge in this area that there is no risk you can be mistaken for an amateur. :) As far as my advice regarding sock-hunting I think it isn't so much a case of hunting socks, because hunting implies some level of challenge. Socks are after their very specific target-articles and exhibit behavioural quirks which most of the time make them rather easy to detect. So the challenge is not so much on the detection/hunting side but rather on having the patience to create the SPI paperwork to get them blocked. The paperwork has to be good enough to persuade completely unfamiliar editors with the specific sock that there is enough quacking to warrant a block of the account. Any behavioural, editing or other detail which is unique to the particular master/sock accounts should be included in the SPI report. For obvious socks, however, a few diffs should suffice. I would add that the SPI should look visually attractive and be arranged in a similar way to an article with an introduction, headers, etc. . But that is my own personal preference, so YMMV. Thank you for the interesting question. Best regards. Dr. K. 04:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ways to overcome WP:OVERCITE

Hello Dr.K.,

In light of the citation issue at Armenian Genocide, I recently uncovered a new trick to overcome WP:OVERCITE. I am guilty of this myself, and I tried it out at Victor Maghakian, an article I created awhile ago. In case you didn't know, you can condense the sources into one ref and make bulletin points of all the other sources per WP:Citemerge. You can check out what I did for Maghakian's article here: [34]. As you can see, I added a "Other sources include:" ref with the rest of the sources being listed in bulletin points. Articles look much more neat this way. Regards, Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Etienne. There is no citation overkill in Armenian Genocide. Not if you realise the background of the situation. If you recall, the infomation that the Armenian leaders were rounded up and then sent to their deaths was cited only to a weak source by HuffPo. This led to the edit where the "sent to their deaths" part was eliminated and only the expulsion remained while the "sent to their deaths" part was summarily dismissed as a "lie" in the edit-summary.

When I found multiple sources to support the intention behind the expulsion, which was the death of the leaders, a loud accusation apeared on the talkpage of the article claiming that the detail that the Armenian leaders were sent to their deaths was "lies", even though by that time I had supplied multiple RS by specialists, in specialist publications, attesting to the malicious intent behind the deportations.

Given the size of that type of accusatory POV, supplying 9 sources, as I did, is good insurance policy, not citation overkill. It also saves considerable time bickering and arguing on the talkpage. For who in their right mind will argue against such amount of evidence? Did you notice how quickly this isue was settled after I supplied this mountain of evidence? This was a chronic issue which is also acknowledged in the edit summary of the reverting edit: This inaccurate content has already been discussed on the talk page. But even the editors at the Reference Desk agreed with the formulation I had proposed. That's important and it is due to the abundance of sources I supplied. That should not be dismissed as overkill or a problem.

The so-called "citation overkill" cured this chronic problem. Also don't forget, each source contains information that can be used to expand the article further. So there is no downside to supplying a load of top-notch sources to an article, especially if the said article has been the target of highly organised disinformation campaigns. What you do with them, however, I leave it up to you. I am not an expert on the Armenian Genocide. But I am relatively ok at finding sources. I did my job in that article. Now I can happily retire from this particular incident. Dr. K. 03:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dr.K.,

I read your response through and through and I understand now why you placed those citations. Like I said, I'm glad you did so. I would've never been able to find as many references and sources as you have, let alone such quality ones. Thanks to your effort, the article is of a higher standard. I hope you didn't take my message the wrong way. The fact of the matter is I recently learned about WP:Citemerge when a user made this edit on Victory Maghakian. But in light of your response here, I now know that you were well aware of what you were doing and I knew you made a great effort in bringing forth a better version of the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Etienne. I fully realise the spirit with which you wrote your message. No reason to explain. Sorry for being overly detailed in my answer but given your comments I thought it would be a good opportunity to explain the rationale behind the submission of multiple sources because "citeoverkill" is a rather unfair label in certain circumstances. I also don't accept that you couldn't find the same sources as I did. I know you are a very skilled editor and you can find many hard-to-locate sources for any subject. But thank you for your kind comments regardless. :) Take care. Dr. K. 19:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

I see you have "thanked" me for both my contradictory edits at WP:AN3. You're a kind man! I try! Bishonen | talk 23:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC).

LOL. :) Thank you Bish, but I thanked you the first time since I thought you blocked the IP for 48 hours; then, when you corrected it, I thanked you for your intention to block the IP for 48 hours. :) Dr. K. 23:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hehe. Yes, 48 would have been nice. It's a static IP. But both 31 and 48 hours are within admin discretion, and Yamaguchi got there first. Anyway, the main thing is the IP got a shot across the bows — a demonstration that edit warring won't work. (I'm not sure they ever saw the warnings.) Bishonen | talk 23:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC).

No problem with the block length. In any case, if the IP continues edit-warring after the block it's very likely they wil get blocked again. But why do you think they didn't see the warnings? Dr. K. 23:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Because they've never edited their talkpage and they just charged ahead with the edit warring after the warnings, without even, err, changing, err, see WP:Beans. Bishonen | talk 12:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

Beans? Lol, that's something we muct be careful never to spill. :) Although, in my mind, in this particular case, that's characteristic of how strong their POV was regarding the glory and genius of the Leader rather than not seeing the message. But your point is well taken as usual. Dr. K. 14:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing

Hello Dr.K I'm so sorry if I edited Twice's page. I promise that I'll not do it again. But can I edit it with their real information?? Hkazkekl826 (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Hazel. Yes, if you have good sources you can edit the page. Best regards. Dr. K. 07:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Congrats!

... on 10 years of being a wonderful editor on Wikipedia and managing to stay sane, friendly, and civil! That's no small achievement, my friend... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna: Thank you very much Iryna for your nice comments and for taking the time to comment on my anniversary. I consider this an honour from an editor I respect greatly. Knowing that editors and friends like you are around motivates me to keep contributing here. Thank you also for all the great things you do here. Take care. Dr. K. 00:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Carthage

Mangling. See also the talk page for defense of your original ERA issue. That said, if the IP editor introduced vandalism such as dildo, good on you for fixing it... and all the more reason to avoid wholesale reverts and undescriptive edit summaries. Keep on keeping on. — $Llywelyn II$ 01:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what your "mangling" comment is all about. I restored the name section as you had left it after I reverted the date format change of the IP per WP:ERA. I checked the diffs and saw no mangling in my restoration. See the diff between your changes and my last edit. There is no change other than the date format. So I am not sure why you mentioned "wholesale reverts" or "mangling" since I restored all of your edits without variation. As far as your comment about undescriptive edit summaries I am sure you can read my edit-summary where I mentioned that I was going to restore your edits. Which I did. Was that edit-summary not descriptive enough for you? I also don't appreciate you calling my edits "mangled" when they were anything but. However, your subsequent edit restored the IP date format change and the IP vandalism which I subsequently fixed. Now that can be called "mangling" but I will not follow any examples so I will not call it that. Dr. K. 02:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC problem

Remember the RfC I opened up in the British Empire talk page? Well it turns out that I said that I wanted the proposed sentence in the "lead", when actually the lead is the first paragraph of the top page and don't actually want it there. What should I do? Should I open up a new RfC or should I just make it clear as I did here?: [35]. Yes I know I completely screwed up my RfC and ruined the actual meaning of what I was trying to say. Probably why so many disagreed with me. (N0n3up (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC))

Just propose it as a suggestion and see if the proposal gets accepted. Dr. K. 07:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I would but Snowded, who is not really trustworthy regarding this problem, accused me of being a ploy to overextend or manipulate the RfC to get agreement (not surprised since he always falsely accused me of all sorts of things). Then again, do you think a one-year moratorium would do the trick? Again, I thought "lead" was "top page", that's why my RfC portrays something else than to what I really wanted to say. I'm sorry mistakes happen. (N0n3up (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC))

I think CMD is correct. Dr. K. 22:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyways, I closed down the RfC and agree that a moratorium is best. (N0n3up (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC))

I'm glad you came to an agreement. Now try to put this behind you and remember to try to disengage. Even if you think you need to reply to all comments, you really don't have to. Dr. K. 01:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I would've much liked for this to've been the end of this. For it weren't for the fact that Snowded continues with his threats and attacks even after I disengaged. (N0n3up (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

You disengaged properly. That's great and it reflects great on you. Don't worry about replying to everything. Sometimes less is more. Dr. K. 03:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but please Dr.K, I'm concerned about Snowded's constant barking that I had it up to here. He is in NO POSITION of reporting me for a topic-related ban. The moratorium states that I do not bring the topic back again after a year, not indefinitely as Snowded says. He has gone too far this time. I find that attacking a user after disengaging unacceptable. I wish if you could intervene since he just doesn't know where he stands. (N0n3up (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

You have to realise the architecture of interpersonal conflict. In that architecture there is always a bridge too far. Something always happens in the end and the resolution that appeared imminent metastasises into additional conflict. Thus the conflict never ends. You did extremely well by disengaging properly. This will reflect well on you in the future. Don't let secondary considerations scuttle this progress. If you engage further to address any secondary points, that's when the goalposts shift and that's when the bridge moves too far. Just cross the bridge now and don't look back. Dr. K. 03:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I don't bring back the Superpower topic again? Because I can do that if you want. (N0n3up (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Actually that would be a good idea. The moratorium is for a year anyway. That's a long time, especially on-wiki. Letting it drop altogether is not much different than postponing it for a year. But I was primarily talking about not engaging in further conflict with others. That would need a conscious decision to withdraw from any remaining conflict with others. The benefit of doing so is that it makes you look good. Dr. K. 03:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't want to linger on this any longer. But what really concerns me is Snowded's attitude. Is there a way I can keep him from trailing down my edits? Perhaps a BAN from my edits. Btw was he allowed to place a ban since I never edit-warred. (N0n3up (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Bans can't be placed by individual editors on others. That needs admin intervention and discussion on some related board like AN or ANI. Interaction bans have been considered in several cases that I have seen but they are difficult to implement and may create even more conflict. If someone has a prior history of editing an article, it is very difficult to prove that they followed you. However, if someone edits an article they never edited before and does it hours after you did, then, that's cause for concern. Dr. K. 04:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah he does follow me in articles he never edits such as in Lend-Lease and Industrial Revolution and others. Not to mention that he goes into discussions in which I'm involved just to bash my arguments, even if they're well-supported such as his petty excuses in here where he doesn't even have a good reason to his arguments and note how he keeps playing "stop the personal attacks" card when I haven't even said one. Or how he suddenly appears in Treaty of Versailles talk page, another article he's never-or-rarely been involve to again to deliberately oppose me without a good reason while others provided well-supported reasons in another RfC I did. And I find it cute how he keeps saying "concentrate on edit not editors" and "don't report me, don't get involved in mu business" when he always threatens to report me and many other things ([36] concentrates on editors not edit, went straight to my block log when the discussion was supposed to be on an edit) ([37][38] gets involved in my business). I think I had my share of this nonesense and should've already reported him to ANI. (N0n3up (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

This is the "bridge too far" I spoke about in the earlier posts on this thread. If you can cross this bridge also you will have successfully overcome one of the main problems you have in this place. There is no easy answer to this. But as a rule of thumb any time there is conflict between two editors the main danger is the long walls of text that follow such acrimony. Noone wants to read them. In the long run you will be blamed as much as the other person because by that time the walls of text containing accusations and counter-accusations would have become too long for anyone to try to read and decipher. Given these obstacles, my advice to you is to stay as far as you can from the source of conflict and only go to a noticeboard if you think you have ironclad evidence; but even then, think twice. I think you know how easily things can derail there. Dr. K. 18:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If you are in a 1RR for a topic or topic-related article, does this include the reverting of non-vandalizing IP's? (N0n3up (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

It does not. But this is the wrong question to ask when the subject is disengagement. Dr. K. 19:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyhow. Is there a way I can get agreement for Snowded to not edit or comment (unless necessary) on discussions that I'm involved? (N0n3up (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Formally, it can be done through an interaction ban. But, as I said, this is difficult to police and implement. But I think you also recognise the difficulty of implementing this. Your qualification "(unless necessary)" seems to acknowledge that there are cases when it would be ok to comment. The problem is who decides when it is "necessary". Dr. K. 19:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyhow, I'm planning on not bringing this subject again. But even if after a "1 year-moratorium", in case I bring this up again after a year (which I won't) with new arguments, would that be a reason to place me a ban on British Empire related articles. (N0n3up (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Any ban decision is frequently made by the community. If the person proposing the ban can persuade enough people that your conduct is disruptive, then such a ban can be enacted. I can't see how a ban can be enacted if, hypothetically speaking, you return after a year to ask again for reconsideration of the RfC decision. Of course, that's assuming that you have found additional reliable sources that can support your new arguments and also that the wider community does not deem your general editing in the interim to be disruptive. Personally I would let this issue drop. I can't see how scholarship will change on this subject that will allow for any radically new thinking to be advanced regarding this topic. Dr. K. 19:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Then again I could show you the sources first or anyone who looks at sources before engaging in an argument, but I don't think I'll come back to this for a long time. (N0n3up (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Both of these approaches are fine but I agree with your second remark even more. Dr. K. 20:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Now, Snowded said to not post in his talk page again, now can you tell him in my behalf to try to not get involved in any discussion or edits as a form of good faith? (N0n3up (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

No use. You already mentioned this on several occasions. Additional comments by me won't make the slightest difference and even risk reigniting this unstable equilibrium of accusations and counter-accusations. Only time will tell if this issue goes away. Let's hope it does, otherwise the interaction ban idea may have to be revisited. Dr. K. 20:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheers!

Cheers! Shearonink (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Shearonink. Just what I needed now. :) Here's to you. Cheers! Dr. K. 02:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Phaethon (patrol boat)

On 24 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Phaethon (patrol boat), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the losses sustained by the crew of patrol boat Phaethon, during the battle of Tillyria in 1964, were the first battle casualties of the Hellenic Navy after World War II? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Great news!

At long last, the Germans have admitted they got it badly wrong and are happy ready to embrace fiscal expansion to stoke demand and an economic recovery. About time. As Martin Wolf said recently, "the eurozone needs to embark on a fundamental questioning of its austerity-oriented macroeconomic doctrines. It is appalling that real aggregate demand is substantially lower than in early 2008." The nightmare is over at last. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Dude

Please don't delete my addition to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. But rather add references because I don't know how to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoul flesh (talk • contribs) 05:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

just curious

Hi Dr.K, I was just wondering what does it mean to "purge" a page? I kept seeing this recently where there's something that says "purge this userpage". Btw I reverted the edit in Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 back to your version. (N0n3up (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC))

Hi N0n3up. "Purging" a page usually means clearing the cache of a page. I saw your revert, it was reverted yet again, although the added source had no mention of the alleged neo-Nazi who first tweeted it. BLPs and politics don't mix too well. Dr. K. 21:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What is a cache and what does BLP mean? I apologize for my ignorance. (N0n3up (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

WP:REFRESH, WP:BLP. Dr. K. 04:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you my Greek friend :) (N0n3up (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

Reverts

What do I do with single-purpose POV-pushers who refuse to engage in dialogue? Do I just let his version stay? If a man pulls up the village's flowers, isn't it best to put it back as it was before? '''tAD''' (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 3RR does not provide for such an exemption, however justified or poetic. :) The reverts of the other user cannot be classified as vandalism, so this has to go through 3RRN if the other editor refuses to engage on the talkpage of the article. The NPOV version can be restored after discussion on the talkpage or after the edit-warrior has been blocked. Dr. K. 22:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Warning?

I was only editing in the Truth.... Chanseul (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem with the article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians"

Hello admin, my recent addition to the article was reverted by 3 users (you included) with, to my judgment, extremely weak argumentations (where argumentations were given, because only Zoupan gave some "reasons", meanwhile the user Alexikoua and yourself didn't give any motivation).

I was also adviced to reach a consensus in the talk page but the user Zoupan, other than using blatantly false pretexts, does not hear reason also in virtue of the fact that the aformentioned user is of serbian ethnicity, a people that has a long history of historic bias and revisionism against its neighbours, Albania in primis but also Bosnia and Croatia.

Said all of that I remember to this admin that the source (https://books.google.it/books?id=jG9cAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA305&redir_esc=y&hl=it#v=onepage&q&f=false) is not only historically significant but it has been used also reliably by 3 scholars, among them N.G.L. Hammond. To make it even more clear, being the document in Italian and knowing myself this language used colloquially (thing that probably nobody of the users reverting my addition is able to), I found no reason to doubt the veridicibility of the same, but to be even more impartial I propose an Italian wikiuser to check it since to my disappointment I understand that the authoritative opinion of 3 scholars isn't sufficent to add a source in the Albanian articles of Wikipedia.

Given that I have complete reason to believe I am 100% right here, the serbian user won't let this legit source to be added to the aformentioned article because I understand serbian delicate feelings could be broken, therefore I ask the permission to edit again the page. Herakliu (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Hello? Is there anybody here?

User:Herakliu, if you attack the credibility of other editors because of their Serbian ethnicity you may be charged with nationalist edit warring. That is a good reason for admins to apply sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. Please watch your language, and try to use arguments from sources rather than ad hominem reasoning. If you can't make progress, try one of the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP Issues in the Talk Page

I guess I should not have removed everything - but there is content in that Talk Page that violates WP:BLP. Hence, the removal. Please do spend some time going through the post instead of reverting. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is I did spend the time and found no BLP violations. To the contrary, I saw good faith editors, including an admin, discussing the points raised by an editor. Now it is your turn to spend time reading WP:TPO, especially the section where it mentions not to remove the comments of others. Dr. K. 06:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:TPO - it is perfectly fine to remove content that violates BLP (second point in the bullet point list in the link you sent). And back to BLP - now what is this - this is actual text in the Talk page in its current state: "You seem to have a problem with a dying old man's paradox section on a public website." and "Pramukh Swami looks like he is going to pass any day now so we should prepare for the out pour of vandals by adding a successor section." - content such as these are not just plain BLP violations but also way off-topic. I am not sure why you cannot see it. Kapil.xerox (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I remind you that when you actually removed the section you said nothing about BLP but only mentioned in your edit-summary "Discussion was Completed / clean-up", which is clearly an invalid reason for removing a whole section. After I reverted you, you started talking about BLP violations and now you are adding that they are off-topic. It would help if you had made your mind up before you removed the section. Again, I don't see these as BLP violations and if you think that some of them are off- topic, you should strike or remove them, but you should not remove the other replies in a wholesale fashion as you did, including the replies by good-faith editors. Now, instead of this useless back and forth, why don't you ask someone else for a third opinion? Dr. K. 00:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If the root post itself is off-topic and makes multiple BLP violation - what is the point of keeping subsequent posts - since none of them add anything substantial to the Talk page? Kapil.xerox (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and requested further comment on the issue. Cheers! Kapil.xerox (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of talk page discussion

Please keep an eye on the talk page of the Pramukh swami article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APramukh_Swami_Maharaj&type=revision&diff=709942911&oldid=709810673

This user has undid my work and is removing it without archive because it is controversial to that users beliefs. This is a conflict of interest. Swamiblue (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I missed the discussion above, my apologies. I just wanted to add that when this user asks for consensus, there are same certain users the show up out of no where to push the same agenda as kapil.xerox. I am going to state them and I am pretty sure that they will 'randomly' show up in support for this users views. They are:

user:sacredsea

user:HinduPundit

user:Actionjackson09

user:bbb23

Take a look at this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendence:_My_Spiritual_Experiences_with_Pramukh_Swamiji There was controversy regarding the release of a book (about pramukh swami) that involved a women not allowed on the same stage as a misogynist from the sect during a press release. Some of this users group immediately ganged up to make sure that this is not noted even though this is noteworthy based on the dozens of reports on this and several other editors agreeing likewise. Swamiblue (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ἡ Βικιπαιδεία ἑλληνιστί

Hi there, I am contacting you here as this seems to be the wiki you are most active in. There is currently an ongoing proposal with regards to having an ancient Greek Wikipedia, accompanied by an active incubator wiki that has plenty of articles already. I thought I would let you know as you have an interest and knowledge of ancient Greek, so you're more than welcome to participate if you find it worthwhile. Gts-tg (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gts-tg. Thank you for the invitation, but, although I am a fan of ancient Greek, I don't have the degree of interest needed to contribute to articles written in the language. In fact, your request reminded me that my Ancient Greek skills have deteriorated over the years due to lack of using the language. Dr. K. 05:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL. DS for Ancient Greek. Is nothing sacred anymore? Thank you for this EEng. That's really funny. :) Dr. K. 03:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not to certain editors at the Ancient Greek Wikipedia. E Eng 05:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I see. No arb enforcement then. Just a regular deletion discussion. That's much better. I wonder what would Socrates have to say about that. :) Dr. K. 05:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

He would have accepted consensus as a necessary consequence of adherence to the Five Pillars. E Eng 05:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting point. He may well have been a Wikipedian if he lived in our time. Dr. K. 18:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Briefly. He would have been banned, as would (for example) Marcus Aurelius. There's little room here for the exacting exercise of the faculties. E Eng 21:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

My comment was actually made in jest. Intellects like Socrates and Marcus Aurelius were a product of their era. I am not sure if they could even fit in our time under the constraints imposed by modern society. Dr. K. 18:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Exercise of the Faculty. E Eng 03:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What a great movie. That and the 1939 original. Very apt analogy indeed. Thank you EEng. Dr. K. 05:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely love Peter O'Toole (and if you haven't seen Creator (1985 film), I recommend it highly) but his Mr. Chips made no sense to me. The original was far superior, in my estimation (but I'm an old softie). If I were preparing a course on films of the late 1930s meant prepare the British public for the war at hand, I'd start with Goodbye,_Mr._Chips_(1939_film), The Lady Vanishes (1938 film), and Things to Come. If I may venture another recommendation, I urge everyone to see Things to Come -- a wonderful piece of warning prognostication. E Eng 05:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Actually, I'm completely incompetent to give such a course, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

I am also a fan of Peter O'Toole, so I'll try to get the 1985 film. I think that the 1939 version of Mr. Chips had more substance, although O'Toole's version wasn't that bad either. Your choice of the three films was great. You don't have to be an expert to have good taste in films. I've seen two of them but I haven't seen The Lady Vanishes. I am going to add it to my to watch list. Dr. K. 19:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The Lady Vanishes is a bit of a slow start, but it's delightful; it ends suddenly with the message, We will come through this together, and all will be happy and well again. And don't forget Things To Come. You gotta love Welles the prognosticator: "And I suppose their grandchildren will see even more wonderful things!" youtu DOT be/LIuEFBxXsFE?t=320 E Eng 03:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much EEng for the suggestion. I really liked The Lady Vanishes. As you say, it was delightful. The atmosphere of the film was wonderful. The beginning, although slow, was great for character development. I found the portrayal of the Nazis rather understated. Did Hitchcock appear in the film? I checked but couldn't see any cameo appearance. I saw Things To Come some time ago. It was very nice and typically British. Welles is a great author, rendering Doomsday scenarios in a typically British fashion. Can't go wrong with those Brits. :) Dr. K. 10:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Just after the boy and girl get off the train near the end, Hitchcock (with cigarette and giving an odd shrug) is one of the people seen moving along the platform. I don't know this because I'm some Hitchcock freak; I looked at the end just before posting last night, and that moment just happened to be where I "put the needle down" (as we said in the old days).

I love the way the old movies just resolve the story and move instantly to the credits -- no long pullback out the window, a helicopter taking us over the city as joyous or sad or bittersweet music swells up etc etc and so on and so forth. Both City Lights (www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=C_vqnySNhQ0) and The Bicycle Thief (www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=C_lJbSJoIuw ) have these abrupt and perfect endings. (In 1949 James Agee called the end of City Lights the greatest moment in film, and that's still true as far as I'm concerned. BTW, one of the newsboys is played by Robert Parrish.) E Eng 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I have seen The Bicycle Thief but not the City Lights. I'll check it out. I agree that the type of ending such as the one in The Bicycle Thief is definitely superior to the modern cliché ending sequences. Thank you for letting me know about Hitchcock's appearance. I'll try to spot him now that you told me. Dr. K. 04:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait... You've never seen City Lights? Are you joking? Are you a subject in an unethical pre-Nuremberg investigation of the effects of longterm cultural deprivation? It is undoubtedly Chaplin's masterpiece. Do not spoil the experience by reading any synopsis but, actually, even if you do it might not matter much -- I've seen it maybe ten times and it always brings me to tears. This is the work for which the phrase "Not a dry eye in the house" was truly coined. You'll see what I mean. E Eng 16:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC) I hope you're not just being nice by allowing yourself to be drawn into this long discussion.

I may have seen it, but it was a long time ago. Once upon a time I went through my Charlie Chaplin discovery phase and I remember City Lights, but not many details. I'll make sure I refresh my memory of that film, especially after your recommendation. :) Dr. K. 04:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Your "typically British" comment reminded me of Menace from the Moon (1925 novel)‍—‌and who would write such a strange Wikipedia article, anyway?‍—‌which was reviewed thus: "[P]artly in the mode of a house party mystery story, partly in the manner of the early H. G. Wells"; "In the British tradition of novels where humanity is threatened, much of the action occurs in rural areas, the narrator is much more an observer than an active player in events, and technical issues—how 17th-century scientists managed to get to the moon—are simply ignored."

Very interesting. I love this type of story. British sci-fi novels and films are in a class of their own. I remember watching several Quatermass films some years ago. They were great. Dr. K. 04:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Do not rush to get Menace from the Moon -- it's pretty bad. Neither Harvard nor Boston Public Library has it, and even for a British pop fiction title that's saying a lot. I hope you read the plot summary in the article -- I consider it one of my proudest WP achievements that it survived DYK without some killjoy insisting that all the nuance and color be crushed out of it, lest someone actually enjoy reading it. E Eng 16:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC) P.S. I heard just now that some guy was nailed to a cross the other day, though miraculously it looks like he's OK. Something has to be done about these Isis maniacs.

I just realised you are the creator of the article. I should have known! That comment about who would write such a strange article; it was a dead giveaway, especially knowing your sense of humour. But chalk this up to my being distracted. :) What a nice article. I'm glad that it didn't get disfigured going through DYK. :) Dr. K. 04:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My blushes! E Eng 05:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Constant editing at Napoleonic Wars

Hi Dr.K, there seems to be an IP[39] who constantly makes an edit without any benefit for the article and without specifying what it is [40]. I've reverted him two times already and don't wanna keep watch on him since I don't have the time. What should I do. (N0n3up (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC))

I suggest you leave it. It isn't vandalism so this is no exception to 3RR. Plus you are supposed to be under a 1RR restriction. Dr. K. 21:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

After evaluating the IP's edit you're probably right. Although I thought you told me the revert rules didn't apply to IP's. (N0n3up (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC))

There are no exceptions for or against IPs for 3RR. 3RR is strictly about content, not who the user is. Plus WP:HUMAN. I don't think I could have ever said something like that. Dr. K. 03:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You did[41] as a response to my question here [42] unless I'm probably missing something. (N0n3up (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC))

Your question If you are in a 1RR for a topic or topic-related article, does this include the reverting of non-vandalizing IP's? threw me off. You mentioned "topic" so I was thinking about a 1RR restriction for a specific "topic". So, I thought you asked a general question about reverting an IP outside a specific "topic", which was outside the 1RR restriction. But this does not apply in your case because your 1RR restriction is not related to a specific topic; it is general. You are not allowed to revert more than once anywhere, no matter what the topic is. Dr. K. 05:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

But the 1RR I was given was for a month which I don't think it still applies, maybe as a recommended measure, and I don't think that if the revert rule whether topic-related or not, it doesn't really make much difference since a user who reverts an IP under a 1RR is still trespassing his limits in a topic-related article and the scenario isn't that distant as to revert an IP under no 1RR topic-ban. (N0n3up (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC))

You are correct. It was a 0R restriction, not 1R, and it was valid for a month. This is the relevant thread. So in theory you are able to revert IPs and editors more than once now, although I would not advise it because it can lead to a slippery slope. Dr. K. 18:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I don't revert more than once, or at least I try not to :) (N0n3up (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC))

DYK for Reich Harvest Thanksgiving Festival

On 20 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Reich Harvest Thanksgiving Festival, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Reich Harvest Thanksgiving Festival was attended by more people than any other Nazi ceremony, including the Nazi party rally at Nuremberg? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Reich Harvest Thanksgiving Festival. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Bad spring rolls...

Thanks for reverting this. I must say, the vitriol was hilariously inventive, much more so than this which I reverted 3 days ago. I suspect the article will be on pending changes for a loong time. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You are very welcome Voceditenore. Thank you also for the great work you do in that article. I agree. The spring-roll vandal was funny in a wicked sort of way and it does look as if this BLP will need longterm protection. Dr. K. 03:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy day

Kalispera Dr.K, just wanted to stop by and say hi in this special day that Greece became a country and wish you a happy day :). (N0n3up (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC))

Thank you very much N0n3up. It is very kind of you. Take care. Dr. K. 02:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Date of article creation

Hi Dr.K, how do you check when an article was created? (N0n3up (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC))

Hi N0n3up. Go to article history and then press "earliest". It will show you the earliest edits to the page. Dr. K. 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Herbert Mehlhorn

On 2 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Herbert Mehlhorn, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that SS officer Herbert Mehlhorn was involved in the camouflage of the mass graves of the Jewish victims at the Chełmno extermination camp? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Herbert Mehlhorn. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

User rights log

Hi Dr.K, I just saw in my watchlist that I've been given a user rights (yes I keep my own userpage on watch, I'm weird I know). It said was automatically updated from (none) to extended confirmed user. What does this necessarily mean exactly? Have I been given some right or is it some new right that has been given to new editors who made some significant amount of edits? (N0n3up (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

Hello N0n3up. See WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. Anyone gets this if they have been on Wikipedia for at least 30 days and have more than 500 edits. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston Thanks, although me being in wikipedia for more than 30 days and having had more than 500 edits had happened long time ago. I know I might be somewhat new in Wikipedia but at the same time I had been here for a while now (2 years or so to be precise), so why now? (N0n3up (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

People are getting these notices due to a recent change in the Mediawiki software. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Strange burst of activity at Special:Log/rights. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page archive

Hi Dr.K, is there any way that the discussions in my talk page can be archived instead of having them deleted by hand? (N0n3up (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC))

Hi N0n3up. Yes, it is possible. Let me know when you want to set up an archive system and I will configure one for you. Dr. K. 18:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, so how long does the process take? (N0n3up (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC))

RfC History of South America

Hi Dr.K, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Marek. I'll check it out. Take care. Dr. K. 18:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever created an article?

Hi Dr.K, I know that people can create articles. Is it like editing a page or do you have to make an order? (N0n3up (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC))

Hi N0n3up. Yes, I have created a few. You can do it on your own by searching for the article name on Wikipedia's search engine. When the search replies that the article you are looking for does not exist, click on the red link that shows up in the search results. While in the editing mode of the non-existing article, add your text and references and then click "save". Don't forget to add "Created article" or something similar in the edit-summary. Alternatively, you can go to WP:Articles for creation and create the article there. Also you can write the article in your sandbox and then move the sandbox to mainspace when you are finished. Dr. K. 15:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dr.K :) (N0n3up (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC))

Don't mention it N0n3up. It was a pleasure. Dr. K. 04:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sock

Anders165 doesn't quite look like your usual sock that goes around undoing your edits. Is this a different editor? Either way, they were being disruptive, so I do not plan to unblock them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: Hi Gogo Dodo. Thank you very much for stopping this disruption and for following up and reverting most of it. No, this is not the LTA Vgleer. IMO, given the behaviour of this account, it is some type of sock, but not the LTA one. I think you made the right call by indeffing this account. Take care. Dr. K. 05:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Right that one. Sorry, I couldn't remember the name. They all tend to blend together after awhile. While the account was editing disruptively and has some POV, I reset the block to a 3RR block. It might be some other sock, but it isn't obvious to me which one so I will apply only the 3RR block. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I leave it up to your judgment. As far as not remembering the LTA troll, it is quite understandable, especially given your long career fighting the sock multitudes. I take this opportunity to thank you for your support against the LTA Vgleer and many others through the years. All the best. Dr. K. 05:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalizing IP at this article

Hi Dr.K. Apparently there is a constantly vandalizing IP at the picarones article. Apparently the IP constantly vandalizes an article, removes reliable sources and adds its own version without sources. Now I've checked all his edits and they are all made to vandalize the same article multiple times. Yes, other editors have done their part to clean up after his mess, yet he is still making unconstructive edits. He even received notices to stop from me and Marek69 yet the IP persists with vandalizing the article, despite the warnings. (N0n3up (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC))

source of balkan name

it is already explained with sources below. check this Seriousgigi (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

According to the section you showed me, the use of the Turkish origin of the word is disputed. So your edit does not belong in the lead and it is not accurate as phrased. It is also grammatically wrong and misplaced. In addition you changed a statistic without providing a reason. Overall your edit was incorrect. Dr. K. 21:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)