User talk:Dr.K.

; Room of the Archives ; (Please mind your step. The building is kinda old and slightly decrepit. In any case, while browsing the archives, make yourselves comfortable, and don't hesitate to rest on the wooden ledge, although its structural integrity cannot be guaranteed. Might I also suggest you bring a book to read, just in case browsing alone proves boring. Enjoy!);
	Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Bot Messages and Image Problems Archive Newsletters

Please note: If your message is related to a disputed edit, the best thing to do is open a discussion on the talkpage of the article instead of leaving a message here. This way we may involve as many editors as possible instead of confining the discussion here. Wikipedia is a community effort. Let's use this community component. Thank you.

The fiscally responsible approach to editing

References in Wikipedia are like money. You have it, your edits go places; you don't, then they are not accepted. And of course you are not allowed to print your own money, i.e. make-up your own references; they have to be from third-party, reliable sources, i.e. real money from a real bank. Needless to say you are not allowed to spend other people's money. All currency may have to go through the scanner for validation. It is a simple system actually because Wikipedia is like a (data) bank. If the deposits (i.e. edits) you are making are good, your credit limit (i.e. your credibility as an editor) increases. But if you start making counterfeit deposits, (i.e. bogus edits), the accountants, (other editors), may want to have a word with you and, of course, your credit cards will be cancelled, (i.e. your credibility will be zero).

A kitten for you!

This is to cute, don't you think so?

Cupcak (talk)

Thank you very much Cupcak Indeed, that's the definition of cute. Take care. Dr. K.

Spanish language

Spanish is one of the main and most important languages of Europe. Why is not included as one of the main?

In the Wikipedia of other continents like South America are named more than 5 languages, including even the French that barely has speakers. JamesOredan (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Corfiot

My first article about a guy from your favorite island, a crazy person for sure.Alexikoua (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a delightful article. What an interesting character. Another article homerun from you. Kudos Alexi. Take care. :) Dr. K. 01:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3RRNB

You just posted a duplicate report. I already reported Maxim3377. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 08:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but I chose to let my report stand because I consider it to be more straightforward since it deals with Maxim alone and it does not involve the IP. --Dr. K. 08:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how its typically done. Same editor. Same revert diffs. I only mentioned that the IP was involved in part of them. I didn't even provide diffs for the IP. If you want to add the details from yours diffs to the diffs in my report, go ahead, but otherwise they are duplicate reports and only one is needed. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 08:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You show 10 reverts in your report, but my report has only five. My report is easier to understand because it deals only with the reverts of the named account in a 24-hour period. Also please comment on 3RRN from now on. --Dr. K. 08:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your DS alert

Hi Dr.K., you recently alerted a user to discretionary sanctions. I'm wondering what template or tool you used for that edit? I'm asking only because there was a recent redesign of discretionary sanctions alerts and your edit seems to still be on the old version. Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kevin. I didn't know about that. I copied the old version from one of my past warnings. Could you possibly give me the link to the new version? Dr. K. 00:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha! Just use {{subst:alert|topic code}} – for example, for the Balkans, use {{subst:alert|b}}. Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. I see they streamlined the DS alert codes. Thank you again Kevin. Take care. Dr. K. 05:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I just saw the link to the template that you provided in the original post. I didn't see it before. Sorry about that. Dr. K. 00:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Έλληνες στη πγδμ

Αναφορικά με τις αλλαγές μου στο άρθρο "Greeks in the republic of Macedonia". Μπορείτε να μου πείτε τι έχω κάνει λάθος? Dourvakis (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A. Katechis Mpourtoulis‎

Your copy edit made me smile. You are soooo fastidious. It's great. I hope you are doing well.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol Bbb23, I treat an SPI no different than an article. Can't have bad formatting. :) I am well thank you. I hope everything is well with you also. Nice talking to you after such a long time and thank you for your tireless CU work. Take care. Dr. K. 17:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Komnenos

Hello mr. K, you cannot simply remove information with accurate sources on the page Komnenos because it does not suit your personal desires. You appear to show biased behavior towards a Greek origin for this name. Only one source was provided for the claim that Komnenus is a Greek family and you write, "modern scholars agree". Moreover you did not indicate that the source you provided was a Greek, while you did state the origin of others. Undo your revert, it is a disgrace for wikipefia to have this type of biased behavior. I know that alot of Albanian farmers chose our name when they settled in Greece. Maybe you can also trace your history there too. On the mosaic of John Comnenus in the Hagia Sophia, it clearly reads Autokrator Romaion. This mosaic is a Byzantine source which indicates that the Komninos family had nothing to do with Albanians or Greeks or Bulgarians. Greeks dont claim they are rulers of Romans, you can be sure about it. That they wrote in Greek had all to do with the church schism and revolts from the local Greek populace against the Latin aristocracy. Go check wiktionary on the Latin words Cominus and Comminus. So please explain what Komnenos means in Greek. In Latin it means "close combat". In the registry of names of my male ancestors, underneath the arms of the formerly princely family Ducas Komninos, officially registered in a Bureau of Heraldry and cardon dated back to the 12th century, it clearly indicates that this name is Roman, not Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:2601:1400:8E5:7146:71AE:D9EF (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I was editing the Barack Obama birth certificate article to make it an unbiased, objective statement of facts - exactly what a Wikipedia article is supposed to be. Unfortunately, some editors are intent on leaving or inserting opinion into articles, if they agree with the opinion. That, or they simply do not understand the difference between fact and opinion, or worse yet do not understand that the two are mutually exclusive. One editor, BullRangifer, even used the term "factual opinion", stating "When opinions are clearly factual, and the opposing views are fringe ones pushed mostly by unreliable sources, we state the facts and ignore the fringe by giving the fringe the weight it deserves, in some cases no mention at all. Framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. It would serve to frame facts as mere opinion which can be ignored, and frame debunked conspiracy theories as factual. -- BullRangifer JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnTopShelf: please discuss the article on its talkpage — Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories — not on user talkpages. And, especially, please stop going on about BullRangifer. He hasn't edited the article at all, as far as I can see. Bishonen | talk 18:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I, too, received a similar "gift" on my talkpage. --Weazie (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, you got a pie. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

My dear Bish, it's always nice talking to you. I hope everything is well in your side of the world. Thank you for taking care of stray pies and beer glasses. :) They are annoying, and, more often than not, signs of additional reverts. Take care. Dr. K. 21:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Greece

Yes, I must apologize. I'm learning how to edit on mobile, and must have fat fingered on my watchlist. intelati/talk 03:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Intelati. We all do that. By the way, now I remember you. If I had remembered you earlier, I would definitely have no doubt this was just a mistake. Take care. Dr. K. 03:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its been awhile. Lol. Just listened to Jimmy Wales on 'How I Built This' and decided to get back into the game. Its funny how many names are familiar still. intelati/talk 04:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to hear you are back and I hope you stay. I hadn't noticed you were gone, but now that I remember you, I recall you were one of my favourite editors. Take care, and we'll talk again. :) Dr. K. 04:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Air France Flight 447

I was going to verify that citation, but I'm not the best at source editing. Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky analogy with flight 447. Because for flight 447 there was no verdict of pilot error in the official investigation, as in the flight you try to compare it to. So, even if you have a source that says what you wrote, we go by the official investigation report of AF447, not by the opinion of the source, when it comes to calling it pilot error, or faulty crew cooperation etc.. Dr. K. 02:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it's tricky, yet the investigators of Afrqiyah Airways flight 771 stated that the crew failed to monitor their flight path and made different with the side-sticks too quickly, similar to flight 447 and it even brings up fatigue, as flight 771 pilot's all had less than 244 of rest before the flight (I might have failed to notice how much the crew of flight 447 slept, and no, I'm not editing the fatigue section of flight 447). If I can revert your edit (which I will only do if I have your permission) I should state that "just like 447, the crew of flight 771 failed to monitor their flight path properly and made opposite inputs to the side stick at the same time." To be honest I think I need to read the investigations of these crashes some more as I sometimes read (and sometimes type) too fast. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has to go to the talkpage of AF447 along with your proposal, including quotes from the investigation of 771 comparing 447 to 771. Your quote from the investigation report of 771 must show that the statement "just like 447, the crew of flight 771 failed to monitor their flight path properly and made opposite inputs to the side stick at the same time." is included in the investigation report of 771 and it should not be your own conclusion. If the quote is your conclusion, it is WP:OR and it will not be added to the AF447 article. But I don't think the investigators of flight 771 can make conclusions about AF447 in any case, because they did not investigate AF447. I will copy this discussion to the AF447 talkpage so that other editors can give their opinion. Dr. K. 20:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that idea works. Thank you. Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Sorry about Alex the Greek. It seemed too obvious, and I suppose it was... Take care! --T*U (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem T*U. I don't speak Arabic, but, somehow, this quote by Ibn Hisham made sense to me. It just sounded right, in the sense that's how I would expect a classic Arab historian to refer to Alexander. As it turns out, it's a known quote from a note in the Qur'an. Please see wikiquote:Alexander the Great. All the best. Dr. K. 23:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	This is for your valuable contributions in reverting vandalism. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 07:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Path for the nice barnstar. I really appreciate it. Take care. Dr. K. 17:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EOKA

Thanks for your edits in EOKA. Seems that we ended up in a commonly accepted version. A minor suggestion. You wrote "..the Greek Cypriots seeing that neither the British investment, nor Enosis, had materialised...", you have to clarify which investment you are talking about. CheersΤζερόνυμο (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault, it 's ok! 08:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Air France Flight 447 (Part 2)

I did follow what you said about not linking the article to flight 771, but now I had a new wat to put it that I couldn't resisting not posting (okay maybe I could). It goes: "Just 11 months after the crash, on 12 May 2010, the Airbus A330 had another fatal crash when Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771( operated by an Airbus A330-202 registered as 5A-ONG) crashed on final approach to Tripoli International Airport in Tripoli, Libya, killing all but one of the 104 people on board. This further hampered the investigation into flight 447 as it also involved an Airbus A330."

So what should I do? Just cut out the "as it also involved an Airbus A330." Maybe the A330's reputation was damaged briefly until one or both of the investigations was/were complete? I don't know. Also, I doubt this is going to work, and I wasn't sure if I should even add it, but I couldn't take it and I needed your help. (P.S. even though my proposal failed, the responses were still interesting and was a cool topic (if that's the way I should put it because aviation disasters are tragic)). I'm sorry if this frustrates you. Also I saw the rules, but I posted it here because im nervous about what other user will say. I hope that you will understand Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Hi, could you please help me with the article for Rossendale United F.C.? Best, JV5, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe. Sure, I'll have a look. Take care. Dr. K. 02:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup, Gerda. As the seasons pass, and times change, it is always nice to see you reminding me of an anniversary as beautiful as this. Au revoir ma chère. Dr. K. 17:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Please accept my apologies along with this barnstar. I was not acting in good faith. I thought that you were playing the copyvio card. History teaches that someone should acknowledge his wrong-doings.Cinadon36 (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Kudos when dueCinadon36 (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History teaches that someone should acknowledge his wrong-doings. History? I thought his name was @Jayron32: Talking about a lesson from history. Dr. K. 19:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like --Jayron 32 19:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the post of @Jayron32: did the trick. He explained it very well. But I do not have a barnstar for him though.Cinadon36 (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. I don't need to collect pieces of flair to validate my work. Thanks for working to make Wikipedia better! A better encyclopedia is reward enough for me. --Jayron 32 19:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Cinadon36 (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cinadon. I have a new plan. A more equitable and stress-free plan. Here it is: Instead of sending these files to me, an action that would make me the sole recipient of the information - with all the responsibility this entails, you can upload the files on dropbox, and provide the link to anyone who cares to check them out. I think this is a much simpler and equitable proposal and removes the responsibility from me to have to analyse and explain the info therein. Dr. K. 02:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do.Cinadon36 (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EOKA article

Geia sas Dr.K., hope all is well with you! I have the article on EOKA on my watchlist and after returning from a (sort of) wikibreak I found it in a very different shape than when I last saw it and I was frankly shocked. I remember it being a well-written and comprehensive article, but now it's got little content on the actual article and lots of text on the talk page... I am skim reading through the talk page, but if I am not mistaken, all that "well-written and comprehensive" text was removed simply because of copyright issues, right? Am I missing anything? Just wanted to check before I jump in editing and commenting :) Regards. --GGT (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GGT. You know why it was "well-written and comprehensive"? Because it was a large-scale copyvio from the (mainly) British sources. Those Brit academics sure know how to write well. Dr. K. 03:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of NPOV tag on Armenian Genocide without consensus

If you review the talk page you will see there was no consensus for the removal. If you don't restore the tag I will, until there is actually a consensus to remove it. At least 3 or 4 people agreed that at least the Armenian Holocaust label should be removed, at the very least, before the NPOV tag could be removed. The evidence on the talk page is plain as day for anyone to see and I suggest you actually check the talk page before barging into discussions you haven't previously been a part of and making false claims like "nobody agrees with you". Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dr.K.. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dr.K.. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User: Ericulis

Hello Dr.K., Could I please draw your attention to the changes made on the D. B. Cooper article made by Ericulis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). You have previously warned this user about unreliable sources etc; and they are again using self WP:OR references, copyright pics and starting edit-warring again, as they did earlier this year. Both another editor and myself have warned them to no avail. Can I leave this with you please? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Thank you for your note. I reverted and warned them. It doesn't look good. A new account, longterm edit-warring, marking big and controversial edits as minor, while not participating on the talkpage, is historically not a good sign for an easy resolution of this problem. Dr. K. 03:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KALISPERA

Είναι που χρειάζεται να προσθέτουμε τις πηγές και το ξεχνάω κάποιες φορές λόγω ταχύτητας, αλλά ο παίχτης Μεις έχει όντως αποχωρήσει και μόλις ανακοινώθηκε μια μεταγραφή. με συγχωρείς δε θα μου δια φύγει ξανά. Και ο άλλος οι αλλαγές που εφαρμόζει σωστές είναι. Καλή χρονιά και καλή συνέχεια σε ό,τι κάνειςPsyc217 (talk)

As you know, all additions have to be supported by WP:RS. If you can find sources for the Greek players' weights, you can readd these to the article. But not before then. Happy New Year to you too. Dr. K. 23:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articles related with Cyprus are full and only, of serious anti Greek-Cypriot POV to the point to incite hatred among Greek-Cypriots and a victimhood culture among Turkish Cypiots

I have decided to talk to you, since you seem to be the only Greek around here, that may be part of what is going on here. If you are not and you are just a user, you can completely ignore this, it will be completely outside of your influence. The articles related with Cyprus are full and only of serious anti Greek-Cypriot POV, and as back as I go in their history, I see exactly the same. The same POV propaganda narrative enforced here, with all the NPOV users getting banned and all the POV ones to be immuned. Do you plan to do something about it, at some point, or leave it be.?Jazz1972 (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance needed

Hello Dr.K., I'd like to borrow your insight on English grammar and usage. I am told that a I constructed an invalid sentence in "It is closed with aggrieve." namely because "aggrieve" is not a noun. Can it not be used, in this manner, while "aggrieve" is a transitive verb relating to the object "it"? Please advise. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. How are you? It's been such a long time since we talked. It is always nice hearing from you. To the subject at hand, the sentence fragment "It is closed with" cannot be concluded with a verb, transitive or intransitive, since verbs indicate some form of action. In this case, even if the transitive verb "aggrieve" had the direct object "it" explicitly stated, the syntax would not have been proper, because doing so would have implied that you are directing someone to "aggrieve" the object, "it". Putting it another way, let's say you wrote: "It is closed with erase it". This statement is incorrect, because there is a disconnect between the action "It is closed" and the command to "erase it". The original sentence "It is closed with aggrieve.", even if informally interpreted, seems to direct someone to "aggrieve [it]", as a result of the close. I don't think that was your intent in closing that RfC. I hope this makes sense to you. Take care John. Dr. K. 22:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dr.K., I appreciate you more than language can say! And though I am well, I am full of regret for failing to inquire, of you, the same; what am I coming to be? While I know you are not one to require amends, I must insist, on the day we break bread, that you allow me the privilege of paying the tab. As to matters at hand, yes, I understand you thoroughly well, and am compelled to say: your prowess exceeds your credentials and could never exist by them alone. It must certainly be that yours is a genuine gift, and I am in awe for knowing its source! Thank you for sharing that gift with likes such as me; to many, a wretch worthy of scorn. Yes, I appreciate you, much more than language ever can say.--John Cline (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John, thank you very much for your kind words. Coming from you, an editor I greatly respect, they are an honour. Don't feel bad about the social greeting. It is perhaps a fault of mine. Since early on, I had detected a certain lack of social niceties in the interactions between Wikipedia editors, which I find rather disappointing. The editing environment here emphasises results rather than idle interactions, and puts pressure on editors to deliver. So, I try to compensate for that as much as I can by paying attention to the social component of affairs here. Far from your self-deprecating comments, I consider you to be an enthusiastic, reasonable, and capable editor who has contributed greatly to this project. It's always a pleasure talking to you, and I hope, as you so nicely put it, to break bread with you some day, even if it is of the wiki variety. :) Take care John. Dr. K. 08:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio at AOC article?

Dr.K., could you point me to the diff(s) where JohnTopShelf committed copyvio? Those edits should be revdel'ed. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melanie. I was referring to a sentence in the criticism section that the editor was edit-warring into the article just before he got blocked. The copyvio sentence is included here, in my latest reply at Cortez's talkpage. There may be more, but I haven't checked. Dr. K. 04:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see - it's the partial sentence inside the tq. Of course, by posting it there on the talk page, you also committed copyvio! 0;-D For such a short, partial sentence, I'm not going to bother to revdel. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, yes. But at least I quoted it directly mentioning the source, so it's fair use. :) I will check to see if there are more copyvios or CLOP in the edit. Dr. K. 04:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Hi Melanie. As I suspected it's much worse. Please see the following strings from this edit: Google search 1, G-search 2, G search 3, G search 4. Dr. K. 05:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Hi Melanie again. Also please see this copyvio report on Fox news from Earwig. Dr. K. 05:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like justlettersandnumbers took care of it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Melanie for the update. Take care. Dr. K. 21:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pythagoras

Hi, this link here is where I had gotten that info from https://www.history.com/news/6-historical-figures-who-may-or-may-not-have-existed that I had added to the Pythagoras page about his existence being disputed. I know you say his existence isn't disputed, but isn't this source reliable? Also why can't I edit the page and what exactly does it mean only autocomfirmed editors allowed to edit this page? Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. History.com is not a reliable source. Also this fact about the doubt of his existence is not covered in the article as far as I checked. So you cannot put it in the lead per WP:LEAD. I am not sure about the technical difficulties you experienced in your editing. Which page were you trying to edit? Dr. K. 10:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Pythagoras page. The source that I added isn't the only source that says his existence is disputed, as there are lots of others as well. I would guess you would say that those aren't likely reliable either wouldn't you? Maybe they aren't since they also claim people who did exist perhaps didn't, yet they also mention people whose existence is clearly debated. Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Atul Singh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Atul Singh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Singh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another K-pop article

I don't want to bother but could you please take a look at NCT's page and this part of the talk section. Obviously there are hardcore fans editing the page and they don't want to listen. I don't think a Wikipedia article should mention unconfirmed facts. WayV has yet to be officially announced by SM as part of NCT but fans add them to the page with no reliable source confirming that this new group is actually part of the NCT's system.--2A02:8108:1840:1474:5978:B972:3F4A:1CED (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Billy Jamieson

On 29 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Billy Jamieson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Toronto treasure and antique dealer Billy Jamieson discovered the lost mummy of pharaoh Ramesses I when he purchased the Niagara Falls Museum? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Billy Jamieson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Billy Jamieson), 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.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Byzantine Empire/DYK

Portal:Byzantine Empire/DYK, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Byzantine Empire/DYK and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Byzantine Empire/DYK during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Constantine ✍ 13:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding article

Hi, is there any chance that you could expand this article Mieczysław Kosmowski. I have expanded it, but perhaps it could still be expanded some more. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a project

Hi Dr.K. Long time no talk. I was wondering how I can start a collaborative initiative/project where I, along with others can change the details in the article of the city and it's info. In this section which I was able to reach consensus (it's been a while though), I discussed how the city of Rome is a city that encompasses two countries, yet infobox details and other details in the article need to be changed to fit this criteria, and don't think I can do it all by myself. Also, how have you been? (N0n3up (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]