Dr.K.

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).

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!)

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)

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

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

Five years!

--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

six, avec plaisir --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ma chère Gerda, quelle bonne surprise. Mais je devrais savoir. Chaque année, le même jour, tu m'apportes le même beau cadeau. Vous avez créé une belle tradition Wikipédienne. Merci encore. À l'année prochaine. Dr. K. 10:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

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 --Jayron32 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. --Jayron32 19:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Hi David. Excellent work. I checked, but so far many of the sources appear to be in Polish, which is not a language I understand. I think this needs someone with expertise in Polish. Sorry. Take care. Dr. K. 21:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

Hi N0n3up. Nice talking to you after such a long time. I am very well, thank you, and I'm glad to see you back in action. I'll check the matter soon and will let you know my opinion on this. Take care. Dr. K. 06:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear administrator Dr.K. I have opened a TALK PAGE in every case of edit wars with user Havsjö. He refused to discuss on the topics in the Talk section and continued edit warring, instead of answering the issue in the Talk page, he answered in the description of the edit:

*There is nothing in Talk, just you again saying "different period, different period!". But there IS NOT DIFFERENT PERIOD. Tell me what merged with Slavonia in 1868 to create Croatia-Slavonia then? It was the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg)!!

Which is not a way of communication on the Wikipedia. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Croatia_(Habsburg)&action=history). In the next article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_Kingdom) the user on purpose deleted segments with sourced text which change the article to be more bias. He has deleted a sourced text which first mentions the term in 1527 used in that article, to gave it a more later date. When even another contemporary researcher was added to confirm the text, he has put on both of them the Unreliable citation sign and deleted part of the text, which now didn't correlate with the source (see source Frankopan title). The user added terms Croatian Nationalists in 1848 and source the text, citation of users text:

*During the Revolutions of 1848, Croatian nationalists proposed the establishment of the independent Triune Kingdom, which would be a Croatian cultural and political union.[1] 

The same source he mentioned, which is a relevant research article doesn't mention Nationalists during 1848 in any kind of form! The article doesn't even primarily talk on the subject of Nationalism, which you can see by its name: National Programme and Social Changes during the Revolutions in 1848-1849 and summary.^[2] Second in the cited pages 12 and 13 doesn't mention in a single word Nationalism. In contrary it mentions liberal and pluralist ideas, as well as the main ideology of Austro-Slavism, also it mentions the Sabor and Reformers,^[3] in no way associated with nationalism. This means that the user on purpose has written a text and added a source which doesn't support nor mention his claim. Then he added another source which was not a research article and had many errors (wrong year of the Illyrian movement (1848 instead of 1843), wrong year of Matica Hrvatska, wrong data of successor political parties) but in the end doesn't mention the term Croatian Nationalist which is used by the user in case of 1848 and the Austro-Slavic movement and prior to it, the Pan-Slavic Illyrian movement. In any case this is a major breach of Wikipedia policies, especially in regards of fabricating texts!

Another problem is regarding Personal insults! The user in the mentioned TALK page used personal insults to other editors (citation);

*If you acctually had any reading comprehension

as well as

*Learn to read before coming to english wikipedia.

So dear administrator Dr.K. I would like you to review all the mentioned, which is present in the linked descriptions and moderate in this question. SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will reiterate what I just wrote in the talk for the '*Triune Kingdom

Im not trying to insult, but clearly do not have a very good grasp of English (or a very free interpretation of the language...). Since the first source does indeed not mention nationalism, nor do I have claimed that does. That is simply another source related to the sentence relating to the nationalists and sabor pushing for autonomy during the revolutions, with this source being specifically for the claim for the Sabor, so that is irrelevant to your point. Secondly, the second source (for the "nationalist" claim)(although it would be quite ovious since the Illyrian movement was a "national awakening" pushing for Croatian culture, language and territorial gains and autonomy) quite clearly states they are Illyrianists are considered "the first stage of Croatian nationalism", again:

The Book: Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume II, Chapter: Croatian Nationalism, page 104-105 "The first stage of Croatian nationalism is associated with the Illyrianist movement (1836-1848) [...] During the revolutions of 1848 the Illyrianists sought to achieve Croatian political autonomy within a federalized Habsburg monarchy.".

"Illyrianists", i.e. followers/reforms of that "ideology" can exist after the movement is cracked down upon or banned, as leading figures from it are the ones pushing for its goals just a few years later in 1848 (as mentioned in the second source), it refers to "Illyrianists", not the official organisation itself. And you clearly do not understand what it means when something is "spawned" from something else (in this case "Illyrianism") in the sentence "Illyrianism [after it dissapeared] spawned two political movements. the first was Ante Starcevics party of...". It doesnt not mean it was the successor or even has to be created by the same people, and it does not say the Starcevics party was the "first nationalists" in Croatia, it says that IllyrianISM spawned two movements after it was gone. So there is nothing wrong with the sources other than you being angry since it goes against the narrative of the "Triune Kingdom" that the articles mentions certain groups (and certain people today...) are trying to push as legitimate.
As for "Matica Hrvatska", since both English and Croatian wikipedia (including the pages for Jank Draskovic) refer to it being opened in 1842 (even with a specific day), I will assume that it changed names later and that you are just trying to desperately poke holes in a perfectly good source since it goes against your POV pushing. Especially since you in the same swoop as this remove the "biased source?" tag for, and I repeat this again, a literal member of the very group mentioned in the articles as having its primary goal in trying push for the recognition and legitimacy of the Triune Kingdom...

Regarding the other TALK pages, I have responded, aside from one of on Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), since that is no legitimate talk section or discussion, you just saying how "you moved everything after 1848" while deleted over 7000 characters and sources from the article, to your newly created articles (this one also pushing the "Triune Kingdom"), a subject which has been brought up and debunked for various 19th century Croatia-related articles (even immediately above it this this "move announcement", there are several discussions relating the dubious Triune Kingdom), since its obviously based on the 19th century nationalists aspirations of the very same people and groups which you have even used as source to support claims related to it, such as the aforementioned "first mention in 1527".

You claim I deleted your information, but you can see I dont remove any sources in the edit-war on the Triune Kingdom page, only reformat text (partly because of appalling english grammar...), I even left in the obviously biased author I mentioned above (who was a member of party whos primary goal was to be pro-triune), including only a "unreliable source?" tag, with this explanation (which you of course removed, along side sources I provided, while calling them fake while failing to understand them..(!))

The topic surrounding the idea of the Triune Kingdom can be seen mentioned in many different talk pages on croatian related "countries"/topics, even 10 years back, with people calmly explaining the (unrecognized) claims on Dalmatia, irredentism and national aspirations of Nationalists groups of that time. So to create such massive changes on all these articles and even creating new ones (deleting large parts of Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) and changing the uncontroversial and "well-known" fact that it ended in 1868 when merged with Kingdom of Slavonia to create Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (which you claim is not even a recognized entitiy in favour of the "Triune Kingdom"(!!)) have been changed to push the Triune Kingdom narrative even further levels than even previous claims, such as in this article: Triune Kingdom of Croatia. Its such a transparent agenda, especially when above every talk section you create calling other people "SABOTEURS" and "FABRICATORS" , you have dozens of discussions of yesteryear explaining the situation regaring the Triune Kingdom. See talk of Talk:Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, for example. When the whole article "Triune Kingdom" itself is just explaining this situation about nationalist aspirations even. (well, although im certain 19th century Dr. Ivan Bojničić of the Croatian Peoples Party's claims have "corrected it" by now...)

I quite regret being one of the two participants in such a massive edit-war so late last at night, but it really riled me up seeing such flagrant and brazen, obviously transparent attempts to push this idea to all these articles (and with such accusations thrown around at the same time!) --Havsjö (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Havsjö and Ban kavalir: Given the immense amount of edit-warring in multiple articles, the only thing I can propose now for both of you is to go to the 3RR noticeboard and pledge that you will not edit-war any longer. In the case of Ban kavalir, I strongly suggest he self-reverts in all articles he has edit-warred, to show that he is no longer seeking advantage by edit-warring. If he does not do that, I am certain he is going to be blocked for a long time. Best of luck. By the way, I'm not an admin. Dr. K. 09:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I currently have done a lot of editing and have more to do. Can you please me make some infoboxes for me, as I need all the help that I can get, and can't do all this editing by myself. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi David. Infoboxes are not my thing, but if you want me to lend a hand somewhere, I'll consider it. Dr. K. 04:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you can make an infobox for this article Aarni Neuvonen that would be great. I am going to be making infoboxes for other articles as well. Also congadulations for saving the Pavlos Kouroupis article from deletion as well! I have since added it to the List of people who disappeared as it has earned its rightful place on that list! It will get even more views now that is there. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

(watching, and willing:) That is a strange article for a biography, not say born when, educated in what and where, day job what. It needs that first. I use {{infobox person}} for all people, and the documentation is quite good, - you can probably do it yourself. I confess that I usually simply copy from a similar person, and that fill the fields (and typically leave one wrong, - better don't do that). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest edits (and edit summaries) like this [[1]] will do you no favours, rein it in a bit.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why you think this is inappropriate. I was simply expressing my relief that a regular voiced their opinion, a bit late, but better than never. If this opinion had come a bit earlier, a lot of upheaval would have been avoided. I stand by that assessment. I don't see why you disapprove. Dr. K. 10:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

On second thought, perhaps, a subtler response could have been more appropriate. In any case, thanks for the verdict. Dr. K. 11:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Talk:Student_protest#student_suicide_as_student_protest. Your examples are for student activism, not on-campus student protests. Otherwise we might as well merge those two articles. Hence why I also proposed a move, to avoid confusion between those terms. Student protest is ambiguous. Of course, in simple English, those self-immolation were student protests, as in 'protests by students'. But in academic literature, we distinguish 'protest physically located on campus', i.e. campus protest, sometimes referred to as student protest, to a more general student activism, which includes all forms of student mobilization, activism, and protests, whether on campus or not. If we can find an a example of student suicide that occurred on campus, it will be an example of an extreme student/campus protest, but the examples you provided happened on city squares, and as such, they are not on-campus student protests. IMHO I think the extreme examples of on-campus protest we could find would include violence, vandalism, even casualties, but probably not outright suicide... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC) PS. Your effort is not wasted, and is appreciated. I've moved the content you added/sourced to student activism: [2]. Those are important incidents, but they are examples of student activism (also sometimes known as student protest), not of campus activism (also sometimes known as student protest). Student protest is simply an imprecise term that should be a disambig. Please reconsider your objection to the move. There's no independently-notable concept of student protest outside student activism or campus protest. It's just an ambiguous term. Protest by students = student activism. Protest on campus = campus protest. Student protest = disambig between those two. I hope we can mend fences and agree on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I completed a review at Template:Did you know nominations/Pavlos Kouroupis, and noted one question. Please respond there when you are able. I look forward to seeing this nomination on the main page. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Inserting the word "falsely" into the introductory sentence of the Obama Birth Certificate article makes it seem like you have a personal bias towards a certain viewpoint. Even though all the evidence points to Obama being born in the US, it is being intellectually dishonest to suggest that it's 100% a matter of fact that he was born there. Removing the word "falsely" simply removes that bias and provides an objective viewpoint on the situation. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldstandard32 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, it is 100% fact. That a few delusional morons continue to believe, in spite of all evidence, that Obama was born in Kenya, is of no more consequence to us than the fact that a few delusional morons continue to believe, in spite of all evidence, that the moon is made of green cheese. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you NorthBySouthBaranof. Your reply captures the situation quite well. You saved me from typing my own. Dr. K. 05:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fwiw, I wrote one too: [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good points. Unfortunately, he didn't heed your advice and now he is blocked. Dr. K. 05:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. That seemed a little quick, but I see they reverted again 20 min after being warned at their talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you please upgrade this article Akpan Utuk for me? I have a lot of editing to do and can't do it all by myself. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi David. Sorry, but I Googled and I couldn't find any English sources for this topic. Dr. K. 00:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply  — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear Doctor, thanks again for a little gem on Greek culture. I enjoyed it and learned quite a bit :). Keep it up, and best regards! Constantine ✍ 15:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear Kosta, thank you for your encouragement. You are very welcome, but it is my turn to thank you also for your great contributions on Byzantine civilisation and many other topics. As far as Nostradamos, I hope you liked the songs, in addition to the article. :) Take care. Dr. K. 18:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:EOKA#Death toll.Cinadon36 18:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You thanked me for File:Municipal theatre of Corfu being built.jpg, but do you think it could still stand to be narrower and taller, to match the 'original'? I was a bit confused, because your 'sepia' version has a 'wide' aspect ratio. I worked from that 'sepia' version for detail, but I can easily adjust the final aspect ratio to be narrower and taller, to match the 'original' if you think that would be correct - your choice. Cheers. -- Begoon 19:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Actually, I've gone ahead and uploaded that a/r adjustment, because I'll be offline in a while and I don't want to forget. You can just revert it if you don't think it's required/necessary/correct (or if you just don't like it...) Cheers. -- Begoon 19:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Begoon. Thank you for letting me know and for trying to fix this picture. I'm not sure about the aspect ratio, so I'll leave it up to your judgement. Take care. Dr. K. 19:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Ok, well I think it's about as close as I'm going to get now, so I'll call it 'done'. Cheers. -- Begoon 19:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Great. Thanks again Begoon. Dr. K. 19:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok, what's going on here? You are automatically reverting my edits, where I'm just citing the listed weight of the players that is missing, from the info that is given from their Wikipedia pages, and you're telling me that Wikipedia is not a reliable source? Have you seen a reliable source regarding the existing listed weight of the other players? It doesn't make sense. Before you accuse somebody for disruptive editing, please check their previous edits. All my edits on Panathinaikos B.C. are in good faith. I'm the only one in that specific page whose edits are 100% accurate, and I'm reverting anything that is not confirmed. I was the one that requested for that article to get semi-protection. You are not fair with me, man. I think that I deserve better treatment here. --Panosgatto (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, absolutely, that's what I've been telling you: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. I can't believe you don't understand this simple fact. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. So anyone can put any number they like. If the stuff they add to the wiki doesn't have reliable source backup, external to Wikipedia, the stuff must be removed. That's why we have WP:RS. Only the reliable sources can verify the facts we add on wiki. See WP:V. I hope this helps. . Dr. K. 10:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect, I'm just telling you that this doesn't make sense, because you either have to accept the missing listed weight of these players, or you have to remove the existing listed weight of the others. I understand Wikipedia's policy regarding reliability, but you're going with different criteria for the exact same situation, and that's what's confusing me. --Panosgatto (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

No. Any weights that are not sourced to reliable sources stay out. That's non-negotiable. The foreign players have their weights listed by the NBA and other reliable sources, that's why I left them in. Most Greek players don't have reliable sources for their weight. That's why I removed them. Some Greek players have their weight listed by reliable sources, external to Wikipedia. If you can find them, you can add them. But remember, no wiki sources. Dr. K. 11:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC),Reply

Ok, now you made it clear and understandable, explaining the NBA sources. If I find reliable sources about the other players, I'll add the info. But just reminding again that all my edits are in good faith. I don't like to see you implying that I'm vandalizing this article, please, cause it's not fair. I'm doing my best here. Thank you. --Panosgatto (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am glad we reached an understanding. I never implied you were vandalising the article. My warnings to you were for missing sources, not for vandalism. Now I understand even better that you do not plan to keep adding unsourced weights, so your good faith is clear. Best regards. Dr. K. 11:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I sincerely want to thank you for your help and contribution. Truly appreciate Skartsis (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are very welcome Mr. Skartsis. It was my pleasure. In turn, I wish to thank Icewhiz who alerted me to this deletion discussion. By the way, for many years I have been a fan of yours and your epic contributions on articles regarding the industrial development of Greece. Keep up the epic work and if you ever need my assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know. Take care. Dr. K. 19:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again, I have seen your contributions on many subjects as well, please you too keep up the good work Skartsis (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are very welcome Mr. Skartsis, and thank you for your kind words. It was a pleasure talking to you. Take care. Dr. K. 21:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Dr. K, Drmies (talk · contribs) advised me to contact you regarding our discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrmies&type=revision&diff=907849418&oldid=907836846To sum it up, I've been seeing a lack of consistency in group articles. The articles for bands with international appeal (bands like Luna Sea, Babymetal, or even K-pop groups like Iz One) do not list things like member birthdates and image colors, while J-pop articles like Angerme, Iris (Japanese band), Camellia Factory, etc. insist on listing them. Could you give me a direction of understanding what to do when I edit articles? Thanks. lullabying (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Rock on, K! Drmies (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! Do you think that you could expand some of the articles in the title listed above that are short and could use expanding. I believe that you are the best one suited to do this! Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am Péter. Well, there is a problem with that 'admin' IamnotU or something like that. FOR ONE YEAR he has deleted ALL my changes, edits here, mainly without any reasons or any detailed explanations. It is not my style to 'run down' someone but in this case I am forced to because othewise there are no problems with my edits, he is the ONLY ONE that makes problems for me, I do not know why. Although I am not English I know this language quite well... So please HAVE a look at my Budapest edits and change them ONLY if there is a REAL reason. I want the text to be shorter, clearer, without word-repeatings etc., that was what I have done there. You can change there things that you think are NOT correct but to undo ALL my edits is very annoying. I was working on it a lot and I know this town quite well. Thanks in advance. Kapeter77 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would like to apologize for forcing you warn me about my activity in Wikipedia, but I thought that my edits did not violate Wikipedia's policy and, therefore, following its motto "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit", I edited without any warning. Grigoris3 (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Grigoris for your nice message. This problem happens from time to time. People like numbering prime ministers of Greece, United Kingdom, and perhaps of other countries. This does not work for various reasons. When you see comments when you edit an article not to number or add honourifics, it would be a good idea to follow that advice. Take care. Dr. K. 21:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

— Maile (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't mean to thank you on that revert. I'd assumed the Thank You would bring up a messaging window.....not be automatic.

I didn't think a citation would be needed as I was bringing the article into agreement with the English Wikipedia article on "Automatic Watches". I don't believe citing Wikipedia is appropriate so, is it necessary to copy the citations from the other article? I honestly don't know ... I don't do edits I think require citations. Mad Bunny (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message. The citation already in the Rolex article claims Rolex was the first to invent the automatic mechanism. Therefore, your edit did not conform to the existing reference. If you add another reference that contradicts the existing reference, then this has to be investigated further on the talkpage so that a determination can be made as to what is going on. Dr. K. 21:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that you can't remove declined unblock notices while blocked, but removing the block notice is fine. – bradv🍁 03:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have a different understanding, but I'll check. Dr. K. 03:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

See WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING. – bradv🍁 03:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I had just finished reading those and was ready to reply when I saw your second message. You were correct. Thank you for the correction. Dr. K. 03:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Cheers. – bradv🍁 03:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you again, Brad. Cheers. Dr. K. 03:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are most welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Fylindfotberserk for the cute pic. :) Keep up the good work. Take care. Dr. K. 10:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I did not intend to revert the edit you've made on the McDonald's article. I can see how it appeared as though I engaged in an revert edit war, which I was not. I was in the process of editing another article and I did not realize I was still on the McDonald's Wikipedia article when it published as though I reverted your edit. I was and I am fine with your edit. It was my error on my end. I hope that clarifies things for you Dr.K. Thank you! Ehudakineah. 7:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Ehudakineah for your nice message. No apology necessary. Edit-conflicts happen all the time. All the best to you. Dr. K. 17:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I think you have already noticed that there is a certain IP editor who keeps removing Ancient Greek diacritics from names and words and replacing them with Modern Greek diacritics. You may want to keep an eye on them. This editor appears to have been quite prolific in removing polytonic accents and breathing marks from various Ancient Greek names and words across a large number of articles. —Katolophyromai (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Kat. I finished up the cleanup you had started. Please let me know if they continue. Dr. K. 06:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will make sure to do that. Thank you for your response! —Katolophyromai (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are very welcome, Kat. Anytime. Thanks for reporting. Best of the Season to you and a Happy New Year! Dr. K. 21:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I don't accept your warnings! Most of the users just put random sources from random people into the article, but I offered the official German statistics. If you ask any reputable and respectable scientist on this planet (especially statisticians or demographers) how many Turks live in Germany, then he would cite my numbers!

Hello, I was wondering if you could explain the reasoning behind deleting my citation needed marks for the Western Culture article. All Wikipedia article statements are supposed to be sourced, and the first paragraph of the Lead section lacks any sources. I think it would be appropriate for the definition of Western Culture to be a sourced statement. This what led me to mark it as needing a citation. I see this as a learning opportunity and would love to grow as a Wikipedia contributor. Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhousey7785 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello. The reasoning is explained in my edit-summary where I included a link to WP:LEAD. Please click on that link, where it is explained that the lead, as a summary of the article, does not require facts to be cited. Dr. K. 21:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

While it does not require sources, I think a source for the definition of such a complex term would be appropriate. The article you linked says: "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citation" I believe Western culture merits the inclusion of some sources in its Lead, especially when one takes into consideration how unsourced the rest of the article is. Thank you for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhousey7785 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Adding four citation-needed tags in the first paragraph of the lead has the effect of destroying the lead. The facts presented don't seem unreasonable to me. Sometimes, one has to exercise discretion when tagging facts that can either be cited easily or seem obvious. I haven't checked the rest of the article to see if the facts present at the lead can be fairly summarised as they are now, but the current lead seems reasonable to me. The best course of action at this stage is to open a discussion at the article talkpage so that other wiki editors can participate there. Dr. K. 22:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is a competency issue, as pertaining to one's mastery of the English language. But the mainspace is not the place to argue this! El_C 14:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, I disagree. It is only a minor copyedit issue. SR's language in the article is actually better than many other editors, and in no way nears CIR. Dr. K. 14:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well, we can disagree. I deem it a competency issue. But you should not use the mainspace to make that argument, in any case. El_C 14:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

It was not the mainspace. It was the edit-summary. There is a difference. The edit-summary field is not mainspace. It is a main space adjunct. Dr. K. 14:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

You should not have done it. It was pointy. Also, please do not reopen archived threads at ANI — especially while this discussion remains outstanding. El_C 14:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also, you didn't merely "copyedit" — you rewrote. Which is what was needed due to the competency issues I am highlighting. El_C 15:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Correcting the record, especially when using CIR in the wrong manner against an editor, is not POINTY and I disagree with your closing at ANI and your revert of my note. Dr. K. 15:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

We can play semantics, but I mildly rewrote. Still, no CIR issue. CIR means the editor is incompetent to write, not mildly inefficient. Dr. K. 15:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

It was, indeed, pointy. Please do not do it again. Anyway, you may disagree with the close, but it is done. That thread is closed now. I do not deem it to be mild, I deem that addition to be suffering from competency issues (to the point of incoherence), suggestions on how to address that were provided in my closing summary. El_C 15:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Again, I disagree. SR's post in the article was nowhere near incoherent or CIR, so I had to correct the record. If you disagree with me, then please ask someone else about this issue, instead of continuing this fruitless discussion on my talk. Dr. K. 15:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

You can disagree, but I am telling you that using the mainspace edit summary to "correct the record" was pointy and inappropriate. El_C 15:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

---

Thanks for the kind words, Dr.K. Sorry, it got a bit tense. Anyway, as mentioned, I think the issue is obviously machine translation-related. That just simply did not occur to me. I thought SR was simply not putting in the same effort to their mainspace edits as they were their comments. It was quite the dissonance. Because otherwise, their English threshold seems fine. But it is what we do on the mainspace that counts. Anyway, hopefully, they follow my advise to avoid that, and instead, try to confidently write their own prose. Many thanks again. El_C 23:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are very welcome, and thank you also, El_C. I am glad we got this out of the way. Take care. Dr. K. 23:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well Dr K. MarnetteD|Talk 23:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much Marnette for your wishes and kind words. Likewise, I thank you for your great contributions to the 'pedia, and your community spirit. This literary cocktail definitely sounds like an exquisite proposition during this wonderful season. I had no idea about the drink, but it looks delicious. I just added it to my to-do list for Christmas and New Year. Too bad I'm not in the States to taste this great piece of Americana in its proper form. Best of the Season to you Marnette, and a Happy New Year! Dr. K. 17:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome Dr K and thanks for your kind wishes in return. As with most warm alcohol drinks they go down easy and 1 or 2 go a looong way :-P MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are very welcome Marnette. Thank you for the advice. It will come in handy when I try this very tempting cocktail. :) Dr. K. 18:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dr.K. FYI: For the record, I'm assuming that this edit, which you correctly reverted, was made in good faith, since 1601 has often been given as Pierre de Fermat's birth year. See my comment here, Regards Paul August ☎ 12:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the message, Paul. I checked the reference at the lead and it mentioned 1607. It was a case of reference hijacking, thus the warning to the user. After I read your extensive note at the talkpage of the editor, I understand the full context of the DOB issue. I hope, after your explanation, s/he will stop adding 1601. Dr. K. 17:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Let's hope. Paul August ☎ 21:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. :) Happy New Year, by the way, Paul. Take care. Dr. K. 23:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much Gerda for this beautiful barnstar and elegant reminder. By the way, Happy New Year to you! It is always nice seeing you and your wisdom on my talk, and in this project. Take care. Dr. K. 18:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I apologise for the edit war on Constantine IX Palaiologos I was just trying to simplify things by adding titles etc and I am a fairly new user.

Sincerely Afryingpanwithoutahandle Afryingpanwithoutahandle (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

No problem Afryingpanwithoutahandle. Thank you for your nice message. Best regards. Dr. K. 02:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

It may be intentional, but your current "ad" you set in Twinkie links to Twinkie... twice.

It looks like: "(edit summary... (TW★TW))" –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 02:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think I know how my twinkle contribs look like. Have you heard of Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star? Dr. K. 02:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The section was built over decade and survived intact. Every point was referenced. Future Perfect at Sunrise made his first and only edit to the page completely removing the controversy section and issued me a warning on my talk page that if ever I added to a similar referenced section I could receive a ban! There was no talk page discussion on the removal, no debate - just the entire section that stood and was added to for 10 years removed in an instant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodoros_Pangalos_(politician)&dir=prev&offset=20150616193928&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reaper7#January_2020

Is there anyway you can help put back this section, I noticed you also helped maintain this section over the years. It was well referenced (mainstream Greek media outlets) and hugely useful to the reader. There was no POV, it was not poorly referenced and every instance described took place - this is a massive loss to the page. Reaper7 (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Reaper7. I haven't looked into this very closely, but there were big problems with the now removed section. I noticed there were conclusions and comparisons made about and between Pangalos's statements that were not included in the sources and the tone of some of the prose was not encyclopedic. Also the section heading is "Controversy", although they are not controversies per se, but Pangalos's statements, which may be controversial, but they may not have created any significant controversies worthy of inclusion in the article. I am sure there are controversies involving the politician. If you want to include them in the article, do so only for the big ones and with good sources. Do not connect statements on your own, as this may become OR or POV. As far as the warning you got, I'm not sure why you got it, since your recent addition to the article is innocuous and does not warrant the severe warning you got. Checking through the history of the article, I saw that you created some of the material of the section back in 2011, but these edits are way too old to warrant reviving such a strong warning which should have been given in 2011, if at all. Chalk this up to heavy-handed tactics. Conclusion, make a sandbox with the material you wish to add, make sure the sources are good and they describe it as a big controversy, ask me before you add it to the article, and you should be fine. Do not, under any circumstances, draw your own conclusions or use tabloid language such as "he got caught doing this or that". Dr. K. 03:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for researching what actually happened. Not only did I not create the section, the part I added was simply when Pangalos apparently called Greeks lazy - stated he would sue anyone who printed it and then when a Turkish journalist stated he had the recording, all court matters ceased - and that was back in 2011 I added that! People have added all sorts since then - 1 or 2 stories not sourced or their sources were removed for unknown reasons over the decade that make up the article but for my money, most of it was from reliable sources like To Vima for example. So it was strange when at the beginning of my warning he stated I had used poorly sourced material? There is enough material there to create a section on what at least by Greece's standards, things he stated that were controversial, but nothing on the scale of the controversies section of former president Lula for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva#Corruption_scandals_and_controversy. I will move forward with your suggestion and rebuild the section using the methodology you proposed. Thanks again and thanks for helping alleviate the obvious discomfort this warning gave me. Reaper7 (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome Reaper7. I agree that Vima is a reliable source. But the way the whole section was written it was tainted with editorialising statements such as Theodoros Pangalos had, in sharp contrast to his later statements,..., Yet in 2010, he angered Greeks when, responding to claims that the misappropriation of state funds had led to the country's insolvency, he spoke out in favor of austerity measures..., His year then further deteroriated when he was caught stating..., Pangalos as a result went quiet.., In 2014, Pangalos insulted ... (italics indicate the editorialising). These statements do not appear to me to be part of the reliable sources. They appear to be connections or conclusions made by editors. As such they are WP:SYNTH. SYNTH and WP:BLP do not mix well. So, let the facts speak for themselves, without adding any editorialising of any kind. There is enough material for this politician to be added to the article but because there is so much we have to add the most important and representative samples backed by the best of sources and do that in a completely impassive and neutral manner as befits an encyclopedia. As far as over-the-top warnings, they are not good. But if they are not frequent, just ignore them. Anyway, let me know when you think the material may be ready for prime time. Dr. K. 16:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Will do!! Reaper7 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Cleaned up the Pangalos page as promised. I removed all editorialising and even referenced sections altogether. Let me know what you think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reaper7/sandbox I am too afraid to publish it myself for obvious reasons as stated above. Reaper7 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Reaper. Sorry to disappoint you, but I copyedited your sandbox and removed most of the entries. In the history you can see my comments. The sentence I left is not fit to be in the article imo, since it is unclear from the citations whom Pangalos was insulting, and the incident does not appear important enough to me to warrant inclusion, even if the semantics were fixed. Dr. K. 00:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Indeed very very disappointing and appears a little disproportionate, but understandable considering the political climate and the editor who was unhappy to begin with. A few comments. The section where Pangalos stated the Syriza politician had a filthy face and should be in a bikini. You were unhappy with the inclusion of this because of the use of the word 'insulted' which was not in the citation. Surely just remove the word insulted and it is acceptable? - not sure why the whole section had to be removed, it is certainly controversial and quite absurd and notable. Second point. You said there is no mention of litigation concerning Pangalos. The second citation does talk about the threat of Pangalos to sue the paper: Pangalos also said he would sue the Eleftheros Typos. So just drop the 'dropped litigation' part and I don't see it as inappropriate. So instead of deleting the entire section it could have easily be cleared up if the will was there to reflect the sources and even find new ones (I am not a Greek speaker). Third point. where he was supposed to be promoting Greek banks investing in Turkey - completely removed because of OR. Would this not be remedied if we removed the word supposed? Fourth point. Entire Beijing comment section removed because of OR and dead citation. Again, is this not the incident? (found it on a quick google search)^[1] I think the section is workable. I think if you are willing to actually help we can remodel it together, however I am not a Greek speaker. I don't think it is much work on your part to make the section work if you really wanted to do it. However, I fully respect your decision and to be honest - I am still frightened from the warning I received considering I had very little to do with this section in the first place - so I am willing to appease the editor who warned me and drop it if you are not interested.Reaper7 (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reaper I understand your point. I also see that you understood the editing problems associated with the sections I removed. Yes, I was in a bit of a hurry when removing these sections so that I could highlight their problems, and perhaps, if reworked, some of them could go in the article in a modified form or another. But, on balance, I'm still not sure if they are DUEWEIGHT and if they are not BLP violations even if they are improved. The usual suspect is not a bad editor overall, despite our disagreements in the past. Therefore, at first glance, I tend to broadly agree with his assessment of that section, minus the ugly warning he gave you. Dr. K. 19:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Will try to be more cognizant of that in the future. Best, El_C 21:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi El C. No need to apologise. I apologise, in turn, if my comment implied in any way that you overstepped, but I had no such intention. I did not take any offence from it in any way. It was just a minor gripe on my part, that, on retrospect, I should not have aired. In fact, I reiterate, that normally I don't participate on talkpages with DS sanctions and admin warnings, but I participate on that talkpage because I have always respected you as a content-aware admin, and I feel your presence is very much needed there. Dr. K. 22:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks yet again, Dr.K. As mentioned on the article talk page, if you find that my services are needed, please don't hesitate. Best, El_C 22:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Definitely, I will take you up on your offer, El C. However, and this is meant very seriously, please do keep an eye on that talk and intervene whenever you deem it necessary. Take care. Dr. K. 22:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I meant what I said on the talk page. I do respect you. I'm sorry if I come off as condescending. I have maybe tried too hard to convince you of my good faith. It is very hard to come off the right way on a minefield with limited time to post. Maybe that was not productive. Discord between certain editors involving myself has gotten to the point where it disrupts the normal editing process, and realistically it can never go away, but I would like to contain it to some degree -- so that is why I am saying this. You have done things I disagree with. Sometimes vehemently. I don't harbour dislike for you as an individual, nor do I think I am some voice of righteousness that you need to hear, or whatever. You are fine to think whatever you want of me. But it is a problem for everyone else if we have unnecessary disputes and clog talk pages, especially on major topics. --Calthinus (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

And re "do not obstruct" -- that is not a comment on your motives, it is a comment on the effects. The effect is that after much text spent on a talk page, a single sentence has not been added to the mainspace. To be clear.--Calthinus (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Calthinus, it doesn't make a difference. It is a matter of OR imo. Small sentence or big it doesn't mater. There is no justification for adding a precautionary note unrelated by RS to the context of the religious debate section of the article. And there is no obstruction in not allowing OR, big or small, enter any article. Next time, another editor will come in and add details about the antiviral properties of gold. And another will add another little OR on how miracles save you from viruses. A domino effect of little OR rebuttals festering inside the article. Not my cup of wiki tea. Not by any measure. Got to go now. Dr. K. 18:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

		The 100 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Long overdue! --evrik (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear evrik, what a welcome surprise, especially in such rather bleak times. The wiki works in mysterious ways. After such a long time, instead of my DYK contributions being forgotten, I get such a nice award for them. I hope you and yours keep well and stay safe. Take care. Dr. K. 04:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I left you a message on El C's talkpage. Maybe it got lost in the rapid sequence of messaging there. Do you think you could list the instances and sources you consider POV and why you consider them so on the talkpage?--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

In no time have I said the sources are POV, although some may be. I have already stated that my tags sqeak for themselves. If a tag indicates improper synthesis then one should go to the source, check what the source actually says and remove the SYNTH. Same goes for the rest of the tags. Dr. K. 21:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear Dr.K., I hope you're doing well these days. I've noticed your contributions to the genocide articles. There is some kind of edit war in the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article. There is also an ongoing debate about the lead and Background section, the chronological order of events, broader context etc. If you have the time, I would like you to look at the situation and try to give your opinion, as a kind of neutral side. It would mean a lot to calm a tense situation, and the topic is extremely significant. I'm sure you can help. All the best.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Well that was quite the revert battle! I couldnt even get a button push in before you'd already reverted every time! Great Job! Bailo26 23:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much Bailo26 for the great looking award and your nice words. All in a day of reverting the scourge of vandalism and cleaning up BLP violations. Take care and stay safe. Dr. K. 00:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dr.K., I saw that you left a "disruptive editing" warning at User talk:Kelpo11, but I had already left them a warning for the same edit, and they had stopped editing after that. I thought you might like to remove the double warning, so as not to "bite the newcomer"... the edits seem to be in good faith, just unaware of MOS:FORLANG. If they continue after this, then another warning would be in order. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nothing to do with biting anyone (AGF on that ugly accusation). This guy went on a rampage of typical nationalist editing and POV-pushing, rapidly adding Turkish names to a score of articles. If you think he merited only your warning, well, I disagree. Dr. K. 01:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I did not expect that response! Ugly accusation? My experience with you in the past is that you're a reasonable person, I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of anything. I thought maybe you hadn't noticed that I had already given a warning, and I was concerned that it might be a bit much for them to receive two warning templates for the same edits, as we don't normally do that. Looking at it again, I see that you actually jumped straight to a level-3 disruption template. That seems unusual.

The account is only a couple of weeks old, and hasn't made that many edits. I see people all the time mass-adding translated names, because they somehow got it into their heads that it would be helpful. Once, someone started adding links to the Arabic Wikipedia in the first sentence of every article they came across; when I explained that they shouldn't, they were apologetic and stopped right away. It's true that this user rapidly added Turkish names to twenty articles in a row, but nobody told them they shouldn't. I did consider that it might be a rampage of nationalist editing and Turkish POV pushing, which I'm quite familiar with, having reverted many hundreds of Shingling334 sock edits of exactly that nature. But their previous edits, apart from adding Turkish names of things, seemed to be fairly innocuous and even helpful edits about food and links to musicians. Part of AGF is employing Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". But maybe you saw something I missed. Probably I didn't look closely enough at the flag stuff.

In any case, I thought it best to start out with a level-1 Manual of Style warning, and see how they reacted. My experience, and advice I've received from admins, especially Oshwah, is that when dealing with potential problem-users, being extra polite and giving them the benefit of every doubt works best. Sometimes they will respond positively to that. If not, when it comes time to take them to ANI, the record speaks for itself - they were treated more than fairly, and still acted like an ass. You can leave your template there if you like, it doesn't bother me, and I won't bother you about it anymore, but that's how I'm going to play it.

Their continued editing today suggests that they didn't get the message, and probably you're not wrong about them. It's a bit hard be credible about the MOS:FORLANG rule when you see an article like Turkic Council that already had seven foreign-language terms in the first sentence though. Nevertheless, I've left more warnings, probably not the last... --IamNotU (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

C'mon, where's that fun Dr. K we all know and love? EEng 18:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lol, no, EEng. It was funny, and it bears your unmistakable stamp of irreverent humour. I'm sure you know that I enjoy and understand it. But does this latest creation really need to stay on that space forever? On that front, I would say no. Dr. K. 18:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Believe it or not I actually meant for it to remain, to assist in those frequent moments when you're not sure which of two or three half-remembered colleagues someone is. Mandruss, Mandarax, John, Johnbod, Johnuniq, John from Idegon. I going to use that template that gives all of each user's links -- contribs, user page, talk -- so you can remember if your being addressed by the nice guy you remember or that other guy the jackass. Personally I would find this very handy since as things stand I'm forced to apply the precautionary principle and be nice when in doubt, which I detest. Would you prefer I recreated it without featuring your name? We could call it editors with confusingly similar names (like DrKay and someone else we won't mention). EEng 21:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

EEng, all these editors you mentioned are fine, upstanding people. If you need a list that includes jackasses, these are the wrong usernames to bring up as examples. Dr. K. 23:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

To my horror I can see how the list of example names might be interpreted as a prelude to that particular use case, which was not the intent. I often confuse perfectly nice editors too. So we cool on recreation? EEng 23:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

EEng, thank you for the courtesy of asking. However, I think that, apart from a temporary joke creation during an ANI thread, this list serves no encyclopedic purpose. If you like it so much, you can put it in your userspace. Having it on Wikipedia space is unnecessary. Dr. K. 10:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I thought you'd like to know that you're now listed at Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused. Now before you get upset, it was Ritchie333 who recreated the page; I just came up with the name. EEng 04:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dr.K.: I am not really familiar with Wikipedia. I have made above 100 edits (can't recall), but still a lot to learn. I have been trying to add information about the Aromanian (Vlach) origin of the Bua tribe/family in the respective page, Bua (tribe), but a member called Βατο, along with Alcaios (who seems to be his close buddy) have criticized and taken out the references multiple times now, even though there are well-known sources. Not even a mention of it, despite the fact of having many sources. Also, go read the talk page (old posts) of the article, that corroborates with additional sources the origin of the tribe as Aromanians. Can you help me with this? Can i report him/her (Βατο) somewhere? I only ask you because i went to the talk page of Βατο, and specifically in the history of it (since he has deleted your conversation), and i saw you also had problems with him recently. Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I looked at your sources, and three of them appear to meet the bar, so I have re-instated the material. The other two sources appear somewhat outdated. In general, it is best to stick to modern sources (e.g. post 1960), see WP:AGEMATTERS. For any questions you may have, feel free to ask me or Dr. K. Khirurg (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dr.K.: Thanks a lot Dr. K. I never received a notification of your reply. I just saw the edit history. Wow, so much back and forth these last days. These aforementioned people really have a problem with other views. Glad you helped. Would it be possible to add an Aromanian category at the bottom or this article, or is this not acceptable? I would also like to ask you one more thing. There used to be a vandalism on the article of Greek actress Irene Papas, where some Albanians had written a false Albanian origin of the actress based on an Albanian article from an Albanian website that had no citations. Bear in mind that the same website claimed that George Washington was Albanian, so go figure. I have for months now sorted out all of the respective articles for different languages (not all had it, but 5-6 did if i recall correctly, including the English one), except the Ukrainian (Ірині Паппа) where my edit is pending since the 10th of December 2019. I unfortunately don't have pending changes reviewer status, hence why i ask for your assistance. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dr.K.: Hello again Dr. K. I would greatly appreciate if you went and sorted my aforementioned pending edit on the Ukrainian article of Irene Papas. I can go and ask others, but if you have "Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes" status it can also be done by you. Again, it is pending since the 10th of December, 2019. I didn't write anything new. I had only edited out the aforementioned vandalism. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Demetrios1993. Sorry for the delay in replying, but on the Ukrainian wiki I have no reviewer rights so I cannot approve any changes. Perhaps, you can ask a Ukrainian admin to review and accept your edit. Best regards. Dr. K. 15:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dr.K.: It's ok Dr. K. I understand. I only asked because i thought the reviewer rights were universal for all Wiki. Do you have the right to sort the change of the name i suggested in the following image, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ethnic_map_of_Balkans_-_german_1882.jpg. I have already sorted out the description and date of the Summary box. Only the title remains. The correct date is 1776 as it says on the map, but it has written 1882 on the title instead. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

14 years, 109,000 edits and only one valid bloc, 12 years ago. Surely somebody must have offered to nominate you? Guy (help!) 15:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Don't do it! It's a trap! EEng 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

EEng, fair Guy (help!) 22:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Gentlemen, thank you both for your confidence in me and your advice. Guy, yes, I have gotten a few offers over the years, but I guess I did not take the plunge. :) By the way, the block I got was for reverting an IP which was adding "Jasper" as a Greek name, at Greek name back in 2008. Dr. K. 02:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry mister, but you are confusing the source video "Accepting a source where an unknown guy appears behind a moving flat mask and presents a skewed version of the story, is out of the question on many levels" --Iamhereforthestory (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think this place is a free encyclopedia. How do you hope to explain the problems on the island of Cyprus without giving the connection to TRNC? --Mühendis ve bilim insanı yazarı kişi (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

In addition, the information I added was selected from the TRNC page of Wikipedia. This informations was not received from an external source.--Mühendis ve bilim insanı yazarı kişi (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

That's why we have a separate article on TRNC, so we don't have to copy and paste from one article to other, which is a a violation of GFDL without attribution, as you did. TRNC and the Cyprus problem is already mentioned extensively in the article. I see you are edit-warring as we speak. You will be reported if you continue. Dr. K. 04:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The name of the TRNC is stated in only one line and there is no connection. I already knew that this place is not a free encyclopedia, you didn't surprise me. --Mühendis ve bilim insanı yazarı kişi (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

You can leave your attacks out of my talkpage. I assume you know how to search using CTRL F. The name TRNC is found 26 times on that page. Dr. K. 04:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

May be up your street, less dangerous than the Pangalos article but it seems the article is going through an interesting period. Have a look if you time on the Talk page there. Reaper7 (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am a veteran editor and I really did not appreciate this comment, especially the inflammatory adjective "hijack" used at the talk page and the edit summary of [4]. I responded here. I don't see any more need to discuss. I just feel there was way more negativity than was necessary. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I replied at talk Engineering regarding AGF and inflammatory comments. Dr. K. 22:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ill guess we yust do the I part of WP:RBI now. This is going already over one history page. I have reported them to ANI now, hopefully an admin sets an end to this soon. @Nkon21: For your awareness. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please do not interfere with vandalism fighting by inventing new rules. There are no such exemptions and RBI is used for avoiding SPIs not for avoiding reverting vandalism by socks. Dr. K. 08:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this comment. If an editor constantly engages in 'maxing out 3RR' there ought to be more specific data about their unwillingness to go through normal dispute resolution. The current AN3 report seems likely to be closed as No action. It has become bloated beyond all recognition, and even if it were at ANI, would probably have trouble getting any admins to pay attention. If there is a true problem here that is solvable, the complaint would need to be restarted from scratch with better data; perhaps at some other board. Which might not be easy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Ed for your analysis and advice. I agree. In any case, I hope the reported editor, given also his final comment at 3RRN, realises that this is not a sustainable way of editing. All the best. Dr. K. 11:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Could you tell me whether this website can be considered a reliable source? An editor, Pablo1355, is using this as a source. Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kansas Bear. Sorry for the delayed response, but I am really busy IRL lately. Good kind of busy, but nonetheless. I hope everything is well with you and yours. The source you showed me is not RS. It is, at best, very sketchy. I hope this editor stops this POV-pushing, otherwise a report may have to filed. Take care. Dr. K. 17:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Dr.K.! No need for the apology, I am still trying to unpack from the move to Lawrence. So I completely understand. My children and grandchildren are doing well. Hope you and yours are safe and healthy. Thanks again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are very welcome KB and thank you for your nice message. It is always a pleasure talking to you. My family is doing great, thankfully. Nice to hear everyone is well in your family also. Take care. Dr. K. 19:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

My dear Gerda, thank you for this perennial and always elegant gesture. Take care and stay safe. Dr. K. 04:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

It appears that there was a coordinated attempt there (multiple drive-by accounts, reverting without slightest comment in tp) by a small number of editors. This has been turned into a report against me here: [[5]].Alexikoua (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, do you think that could improve this article Aristidis Moschos just like you improved Pavlos Kouroupis. How it managed to survive AFD kind of surprises me. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sergei Krikalev s97e5086.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ras67 (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

With regards to my rolled back edits Hong kuslauski (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much, Gerda, for this elegant gift. It's always very nice talking to a longtime friend who tirelessly works to improve this place year after year. Much appreciated. Take care. Dr. K. 02:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Greetings,

Requesting your visit to Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia and article expansion help if you find your interest in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dr.K. Upon taking a deep breath, I wanted to write to you through here regarding the latest exchange at Talk:Pushbacks in Greece. I don't want the aside to derail the bulk of the discussion there and if you see further problems with the tone as is, I will make adjustments. You are a user whose input I value very much, though we might have our disagreements. We have both been around and active on the same articles for a long time, powering through the eternal source of grinding teeth and sockfarms that is the Greco-Turkish matters. I do hope that you will be able to see why some of the comments on that talk page are quite disheartening from where I stand. --GGT (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi GGT. Thank you for your kind comments. Although we have disagreed many times, I value your opinion, your contributions, and your ideas. I also respect you greatly. Your reaction just reinforces my respect for you. Sorry if my comments were undiplomatic to you. I will strike them. Take care. Dr. K. 02:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I believe that reflection is the source of the most valuable learning, and we do have a lot to learn from one another. Thank you very much for your kind response, and I hope that all is otherwise well with you. All the best. —GGT (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

You are very welcome, GGT. I fully agree with your sage comments. I am very well, thank you. I hope you are well also. I also hope to see you around for a long time. Take care. Dr. K. 02:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I wanted to ask you to check, if you could, the discussion for deletion of G-Aerosports - reminiscent of a similar discussion regarding Petropoulos. It had been deleted in the past ("notability" problems), but I uploaded it again, since it has introduced new models and has an agreement for production under license in Canada (a similar agreement under way for production in Australia). Once more, truly appreciating your assistance. Best Regards, Skartsis (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm on it. Ευχαριστώ κε. Σκαρτση. Dr. K. 21:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Εξαιρετική η στάση σας. Για μια ακόμα φορά υπόχρεος...Skartsis (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ευχαριστησις μου. Ήταν το λιγότερο που μπορούσα να κανω. Εαν με χρειαστείτε στο μέλλον, μη διστασετε να επικοινωνήσετε μαζί μου. Ναστε καλά και να συνεχισετε τις αξιόλογες προσφορές σας στην Wikipedia που εκτιμούνται ιδιαιτέρως. Dr. K. 07:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Να 'στε καλά. Είδα και τις βελτιώσεις στο άρθρο, και τη νέα συζήτηση, κάνατε ήδη πολλά, και είμαι υπόχρεος. Φαίνεται ότι κάποιοι έχουν "πεισμώσει" - κρίμα, κρίμα για κάτι τόσο σημαντικό όπως η Wikipedia. Και πάλι ευχαριστώ θερμά.Skartsis (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Σας ευχαριστώ για τα καλα σας λογια. Ηταν ευχαριστηση μου. Μην αποθαρρυνεσθε. Νομίζω οτι το αρθρο εχει πολυ καλες πηγες και θα διατηρηθεί. Dr. K. 21:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Και πάλι θέλω να ευχαριστήσω για την προσπάθεια. Τους πέρασε, κακή στιγμή επίδειξης δυνατοτήτων αυθαιρεσίας απο editors...Θα το επιχειρήσουμε ξανά, με καλύτερα δεδομένα.Skartsis (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I very much appreciate your efforts here, and your good humour. With regard to your opening, unique article tag, I would just say this (as an academic, and longtime editor of very complex documents). In any long term article editing system involving multiple contributors, there is a means by which earlier working editors make clear to those following on, where the work has left off, and what the focal points might be for next editing efforts. Now, if you will grant that many articles at WP have far to go before being GA (and in many cases far to go even before complying with basic requirements like WP:VERIFY), then it stands to reason that there will be long work efforts that cannot be completed in a single session. That means, an article being left should contain indications of where critical editing has left off.

In the meantime, what is the service that is due the next intervening reader? In our case (unlike preparing a book for publication, or an FDA NDA for submission), in the mean time, individuals will be turning to the document for information. And if that information is at all suspect, it again stands to reason, that if we hold our readers in regard, we owe it to them to leave in place indications that particular aspects of the article are suspect.

In these ways, I believe (argue here) that the editor that does whatever they can to improve the article on which they are working, but then leaves it with strong, clear indications where shortcomings remain — such editors are doing both readers and follow-on editors the greatest service (just as they are in my team document production and publication efforts). It is only if one has a low view of the encyclopedia, ones fellow editors, or at WP, ones readers, that the need to clearly indicate shortcomings and remaining work can be ignored. With regard, a professor. 2601:246:C700:558:34EC:1C9C:D792:B879 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Anon, for your kind comments. You make some good points. I don't doubt that there are many well-meaning editors who tag articles for good reason. However, IMO, there should be some balance between tagging and referencing articles. If one spends all their time tagging articles, they may not develop the skills necessary to contribute in a well-rounded way to the 'pedia. But, I respect your well-made comments. Take care. Dr. K. 21:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Θα συνεχίσω να προσπαθώ. Εφόσον είχαν τονίσει με τόση έμφαση ότι η τεκμηρίωση ίσχυε για το μοντέλο και όχι για την εταιρία. Και πάλι ευχαριστώ θερμά. Skartsis (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Long time no chat. Was wanting your insight about this source:

• Dabashi, Hamid (2015). Persophilia: Persian Culture on the Global Scene. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674504691.

For the Legacy section of Battle of Thermopylae. WP:RS?

Thanks. Kansas Bear (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi KB. Yes, long time, no see. Such are the times.😊 It is always very nice talking to you. As far as this author, he looks to me as having an activist viewpoint with a POV on criticising the colonialist past of the West and using this criticism to reinterpret seminal events of the Western world such as the battle of Thermopylae. I wouldn't include such revisionist activism in that section. Btw, I apologise for the delay in responding but I don't visit here often, especially in the summer. Take care. Dr. K. 17:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is all good Doc. During the summer here in Kansas I prefer the indoors. I am in no way a warm weather person. The discussion worked itself out, I guess. I was not involved but I was very curious as to the historiographical context. Take care where you are. Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you KB. I always try to take advantage of the summer because I am a big water fun. :) I like winter too, but up to a point. I saw the discussion. It appears quiet for now. I'm surprised somehow because I know the editor who supports inclusion of the source and I think he's very reasonable and I respect him/her. But, I guess, we can't agree on everything. :) Take care and keep well, my friend.Dr. K. 18:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gerda. Sorry for the delay in replying, but you may have noticed that I'm not as active as I used to be. :) Thank you very much for your precious and elegant gift which I will treasure, as always. You are a wonderful and tireless wiki-institution. Your presence here will always be welcome and appreciated. Take care. Dr. K. 01:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Dr.K. I hope this message finds you happy and well. By my manner of reckoning, it's been too long since our paths last crossed. Clearly: association among family and friends should not be left solely to chance. In case you weren't aware, I'd like to tell you, as well: Wikipedia is diminished a bit when you are not active and my watchlist, less of joy to refresh. And while I fully respect the honorific title you've earned, I want you to know that you'll always be special to me. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. What a nice surprise! Thank you so much for your kind words. It is true, we haven't spoken for a very long time. But it is ironic, my long absence from wiki became the cause of us connecting again. It reminds me of the ancient Greek saying that no bad thing is completely bad. :) I've known you for a very long time and I consider you a friend and one of the best people I have met in this place. Take care and keep up your great work here. Dr. K. 02:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. - Thank you also for all the inspiring responses that I just read again with delight! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

My dear Gerda. It is always such a delightful occasion to see your message on my talk. I hope you and yours are doing well. Thank you very much for your kind words, but I am also inspired by your dedication to this noble and elegant endeavour that has contributed so much to wikilife and brightened the talkpages of many Wikipedians. Take care and au revoir. Dr. K. 00:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi! How are you? I have noticed that you say in your user page that you speak Ancient Greek and I was wondering whether you could possibly help us revive the Ancient Greek Wikipedia at the Incubator. It would be great if you could lend us a helping hand. Jon Gua (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I am sorry to bother you again but I was wondering whether you could possibly sign this (https://shorturl.at/hNQVY) petition in order to get the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek approved. Thank you so much for your help.

Jon Gua (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to inform you that your actions could constitute edit warring, as you are the reverter of my edits. The information is relevant, as despite being disbanded, their profile remains on the label's page. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. See WP:BURDEN. As explained in my edit-summary, your edit has problems regarding its suitability for the lead of the article. It also fails WP:OR. Any time you use a preposition like "despite", you are engaging in original research. In any case, this discussion should move to the talk of the article. I have also informed a K-pop expert and admin about this dispute. Dr. K. 11:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:Timex Datalink has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply