Dr.K.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Bot Messages and Image Problems Archive Newsletters

Your comment 10/12/08:

Hi. Thanks for the suggestion. You were right. The "Evelyn Wood" citation was just an ad. I removed it as well. Dr.K. (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

My response 10/15/08:

Now that the issue is resolved, would it be possible for you to unblock IP address 72.174.21.21 and user Wal2Wal? It should be noted that their persistence in the issue of ads vs content was due to what appeared an inconsistency in which links were considered ads (the Evelyn Wood link leading to the readfaster.com site), and which were not. We would appreciate if you could reinstate editing status to this IP address and user name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.132.115 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you please be so kind as to contact me before you remove all my new edits? The Volkswagen Beetle page is incomplete and contains falsifications of history. I have researched Volkswagen history for the past five years and have unearthed many new facts. I would be glad to share my knowledge with you and discuss any objections you might have, as long as you respect my right to edit these pages. Information must only be removed if it is incorrect and my information is 100% correct and historically researched. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganz-volkswagen (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'm new here. I guess I'll have to read up a little more on proper policy Wcrofct (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi

I added Naval Engineering since it is a main engineering branch with long history.

The following branches listed under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#Main_Branches_of_Engineering are also NOT historically, the main branches of engineering.

Environmental Engineering Computer Engineering Aerospace Engineering

Sincerely Chrysal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.158.130 (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nice one on the addition of the Aghios Georgios image! I went there in'06 and I have to say it's the most beautiful beach I've ever seen! Judging by your username, you're Greek? cf38^talk 18:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks cf38. I really appreciate your kind remarks. Your taste is impeccable. I love that beach too. Scuba diving, kayaking and snorkelling are great also, especially around the peninsula. And yes I am Greek. Nice to meet you. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC))Reply

Please do not revert attempts to improve this article. Please do not remove valid fact tags. And prophylactic: Please do not re-add false information. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

How can you call false information a fact supported by an inline citation supported by the Times of London and the German wikipedia. Your tone on my talk page was also uncivil. I would appreciate if in the future you took this to the article talk page. Dr.K. (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is false information because it is not in line with the Austrian reports on the event. It is not uncivil but rather an act of civility to inform you of my action which I of course explained on the article talk page as well, in greater detail. Any further discussion over there. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dear Dr.K., How could I possibly make a wikilink from " Petzner" to "Stefan Petzner"? I tried to find information in regards to links, but it only shwed me the coding, not how to actually do it.

Any response appreciated. Thank you

--Oxygen305 (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Heh, looks like you were working from top to bottom of the contribs, and I was working from bottom to top at the same time. Got the work done fast though! Thanks for the help.  :) --Elonka 19:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

What a nice surprise Elonka. But it actually gets better. You beat me to the punch. I was so relieved to see you correcting this from the other direction, that I was actually ready to go to your talk page to leave my thanks for helping me in this tedious task. So I will thank you here instead. Nice seeing you. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was very intrigued to see that the anon seemed to have been making changes in the other direction back in September, changing "Eastern Roman" to "Byzantine" in a couple places. I took a look at the Byzantine Empire article to see if I could get an idea of when to use one and when to use the other, but didn't see anything obvious. My own area of expertise is around the time of the later Crusades, when "Byzantine" is the obvious term to use from the sources that I am familiar with. However, I'm honestly not sure if there's a time period when the Roman term is more appropriate. Do you have any idea? --Elonka 22:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thant's interesting. I didn't notice that the anon was actually going in the reverse direction in September. This, I think, is a matter of convention. The Byzantine Empire is also known as the Eastern Roman Empire. So it is a matter of consistency to call it and its article derivatives by one name. In this respect since the main article is called Byzantine Empire it makes sense that its emperors are also called Byzantine. Also the anon made wikilinks which piped the Byzantine Empire through the Eastern Empire term. This is patently unnecessary. The Western Roman Empire officially ended in 476. From that point technically, since there was no Western part, the term Eastern Roman Empire became even more debatable. So before 476 it might be more appropriate to use the term "Eastern Roman". But after the 5-6th century AD the term Byzantine is the more prevalent since Byzantium increasingly evolved into a distinct entity and its attachment to its Roman Empire origins weakened considerably. Dr.K. (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that clarifies things considerably.  :) --Elonka 23:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure Elonka. Take care :) Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC))Reply

From reading the fair use guideline, these articles almost always meet that guideline. In cases where they do not, this calls for discussion and consensus building/article improvement, not some mass swathe of deletion which this editor is apparently perusing. Has he responded at all to your repeated inquiries? I didn't see anything on his or your talk page? T L Miles (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a problem with STr1977 correcting me or anybody else, but do not like his tone and dramatic choice of words.I will certainly follow all future comments on haider.--Oxygen305 (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I don't think his tone is proper. Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Dr.K. I came across two article that I assume were both translated from the Greek-language Wikipedia (in the initial edit of one article the author indicates as such): Patagi and Neochori, Evros. If you have a moment, could you take a look at them? I came across them when they were listed at WP:SCV. My concern is not that one is a copyright violation of the other (because they were both translated by the same author), but that the Patagi article seems to reuse some facts from the Neochori article that wouldn't necessarily be true about two distinct places. If you could take a look at them, and try to verify some of the facts, I would be very appreciative. We haven't talked in a while - I hope all is well! Again, thanks, Iamunknown 06:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Iamunknown. It's very nice to see you again after such a long time. Everything is great, thanks for asking. How are you? About the two articles, no problem. I'll have a look at both of them and I'll let you know. Take care for now. Dr.K. (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you think you can give your opinion in the discussion? Basically the discussion is about what the population of Thessaloniki really is. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll try. Thanks for the kind invitation El Greco. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC))Reply

Read your post to Yannis. Tsiftis as always. Now that things have cooled down a bit it is even more important to remind him of our appreciation--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Τι κάνεις ρε παιδί; Σ' ευχαριστώ για τα καλά σου λόγια. Έχεις απόλυτο δίκιο. Σε πολλά επίπεδα ο Γιάννης είναι ένα σημαντικό άτομο για το μέρος αυτό. Η παρουσία του εδώ είναι ένα αναντικατάστατο σημείο αναφοράς για πολλούς όπως και για μας. Ελπίζω και εύχομαι τελικά να αποφασίσει να γυρίσει. Πως να το κάνουμε. Το μέρος αυτό είναι πολύ πιο φτωχό εν τη απουσία του. Τουλάχιστον φίλοι σαν κι' εσένα είναι ακόμη εν δράσει και χαίρομαι πολύ να σε βλέπω εδώ, όπως και στον ευρύτερο χώρο της Βικιπαίδειας και ελπίζω για πολύ καιρό ακόμα. Άντε γειά και τα ξαναλέμε. Τάσος {Dr.K. (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)}Reply

Just found out what was happening in Olynpic Airlines. This is bordering to the surreal.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not only surreal but the admins at the 3 revert rule and vandalism sites refused to consider it because technically, since the IPs change and edit war over a long period of time, it is not a violation of the three revert rule and it is not technically vandalism. This has been going on for a month now. Currently I have a complaint at WP:ANI but no reply yet. My complaint from yesterday got one IP blocked because they kept calling me a "censoring machine", a "group of editors" and "company watchdog". These are real dyed in the wool character assasins. Thank you very much Giorgo for your excellent points. Take care for now. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC))Reply

Hay, thank you for taking the time to remove Rfcbeach's copy vio's. Its too bad we must spend so much time dealing with these problems, instead of contributing, but that is the nature of the beast. Thanks again! Nebrot (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure Nebrot. Thanks for the kind comments. You are right. It was tedious but at least it gave me the opportunity to practice my TW skills. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if you interpreted my post as patronizing, or accusing you of biting newbies. That was not my intention. I replied again to the thread in questio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this gracious gesture Graeme. It was not directed at you in any way. If you saw, in my comments at ANI, I used quotes in replying. These quotes were not from any of your comments. They were copied from the comments of BMW just above in the section. That's what I was replying to. I am taken aback by your graceful act, because not too many people possess such grace, and it is my turn to apologise to you again, as I have done on the ANI thread, for not making this more clear. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Long threads get confusing in wiki markup. :-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Indeed Graeme. I am relieved this is cleared :). Thanks again. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC))Reply

Sorry Tasokessaris

As an old timer here I know the rules and the punishments both all too well

I never made an edit on Mrs. Kennedy where you said, please look elsewhere, thank you.

Cathie cathytreks (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just found out that I have an open IP , WHICH MEANS ANYONE could have posted under my IP, I will secure my computer right now, this will not be an issue again.

thanks for the heads up!

gratefully--cathytreks (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cathie

No problem Cathie. I just saw the IP not you. I would never have tagged one of the regulars (WP:DTTR). Nice to meet you and take care. Tasos. Dr.K. (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry you feel I'm destroying something useful, but the Wikipedia style manual actually warns against going link-happy like you have. It's terribly distracting and completely unnecessary. Most of your links assume people are unacquainted with very basic information about the world, and even that they lack a basic understanding of English. If they don't understand something they can always look it up themselves, without being prompted by a bunch of links scattered through every possible piece of the article.

If you are the originator of much of this information, you've done a great thing in expanding this article and providing some great specifics. Don't underestimate your readers, though. If they're literate enough to read, they're literate enough to understand most of the terms you're linking to. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for being so patient with me. Sorry for breaking the links. I appreciate your efforts in cleaning up behind my cleanup. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Comments welcome! Best regards PHG (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I fully agree with your suggestions to PHG. He could have made things so much easier for himself.--FocalPoint (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Focal. Nice to see you again and thanks for the feedback. I read your comments as well. I agree with you that by raising additional topics he only manages to cloud the real issue which is just the lifting of the symbolic three months remaining. I hope he see this and modifies his comments. Take care for now. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)).Reply

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

While you are right that we didn't mention in the compromise that it needed to be a special note, we did say that it would be a footnote in the lead that would direct people to an explanation. The way it is now you'd never know that there is an explanatory footnote (and not a normal one). I understand why the footnote is no longer in the lead, but the idea is to inform people. People can read the footnote and then look into the issue more if they want, or just see the sentence and understand all they need to about the issue. The purpose of the note is frustrated if the article is left as it is (as is the compromise we reached after many hours). I don't want to get in an edit war, and I certainly don't want another 10 pages of flaming and fighting, especially as we came to a compromise that has almost no effect on the article. I really hope you will do the right thing and restore your last edit.LedRush (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Normally I would revert myself if I saw your point Led, but I don't think this deserves its own section. Also given that this note/cite is also challenged by other people, not only me, I don't think it is proper to revert now. If you want to discuss this on talk fine. I'll be there. I don't want to edit war, especially with a fellow talkpage participant, so I will not revert you any longer if you chose to revert without discussion. Take care for now and thanks for visiting my talkpage. Dr.K. (logos) 05:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll probably go in tomorrow and see if anyone has said anything. To me, this is also a problem of the integrity of process. We meet and discuss and fight and compromise for days, and finally agree to do something. Whether or not we agreed to have the NB note or not, that's what happened right after the compromise and that's what stayed there. Then, with no explanation, it was removed by someone not a party to the compromise. Why do we even spend all our time making these compromises if we're not going to keep them until a new discussion reaches the consensus that we shouldn't? I just took a 17 day Wiki-break, but the lack of integrity and willingness to work together is so frustrating that I am still depressed by it. Perhaps I need more time away...

Anyway, even though we don't agree on this issue, thanks for remaining polite and constructive.LedRush (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you on your comments about the integrity of the discussion process. However in a dynamic editing environment sometimes we experience mission creep. The mission was to put the cite into the lead. Then the cite went to the Prez-elect subsection, then someone converted it to a NB note. Someone after that modified it to a regular cite and so on. What can I tell you Led. That's the nature of the beast. However I don't think you should take this to heart. What we are talking about after all is a small footnote. It still exists. That's something. The placement has changed. To tell you the truth I don't really care so much about this detail. So I won't oppose you any further if you choose to debate or revert this. I wouldn't want to upset you further, especially since I don't feel that strongly about it. As far as being polite and constructive it is always my intention to be so, especially when I meet polite and constructive people and obviously you fit the profile in every respect. Thanks again. Tasos (Dr.K. (logos) 06:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC))Reply

Dr.K., I hope that you have a wonderful holiday season, and a great rest of 2008! It has been a pleasure to work with you! Cheers, Iamunknown 09:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've posted a request for possible additional evidence at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Cool Hand Luke 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much Luke for the courtesy. I'll try to see if I can find any other evidence and I'll post it if I do. By the way congratulations on your election to Arbcom and Happy New Year. Tasos. (Dr.K. (logos) 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC))Reply

Ἀγαπητὲ Κύριε Καισάρη:

Εἶναι λάθος ποὺ πρόσθεσα τὴν κατάληξη -λῆς; Ὑπάρχει βέβαια, καὶ νομίζω ὅτι εἶναι τουρκικῆς καταγωγῆς (ὅπως π.χ. ἐδῶ). Δὲν εἶμαι Ἕλληνας καὶ μπορεῖ κάνω λάθος, ἀλλὰ δὲν νομίζω τὸ λάμδα νὰ ἀνήκει στὴ ῥίζα ἀλλὰ στὴ κατάληξη καὶ ἔχω συνανατήσει ὀνόματα σὲ -λῆς (σὲ Θεσσαλικὰ συμφραζόμενα) στὸν Καρκαβίτσα.

Με πολλὲς εὐχές, Σοφοκλῆς —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzetzes (talk • contribs) 05:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Σοφοκλή σ' ευχαριστώ για το μήνυμά σου και για τις λεπτομέρειες. Δεν είμαι σίγουρος από που προέρχεται η κατάληξη -λης και γι' αυτό το λόγο νόμισα ότι θα ήταν πιό ασφαλές αν βρίσκαμε παραπομπή γι' αυτό. Είναι ενδιαφέρουσα η ερώτηση αν το λάμδα ανήκει στη ρίζα η στη κατάληξη. Αν ανήκε στη ρίζα τότε η κατάληξη -ης είναι χαρακτηριστική πολλών Ελληνικών ονομάτων. Επίσης δεν είμαι σίγουρος για τη συχνότητα της κατάληξης -λης σε Ελληνικά ονόματα. Πάντως συγχαρητήρια για τις γνώσεις σου της Ελληνικής γλωσσας. Και δη σε πολυτονικό. Για κακό η καλό το εγκατέλειψα το πολυτονικό εδώ και πολύ καιρό για λόγους ευκολίας. Χάρηκα πολύ για τη γνωριμία. Με πολλούς χαιρετισμούς και ευχές για ένα ευτυχισμένο χρόνο. Τάσος. (Dr.K. (logos) 07:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC))Reply

• • Ἄλλο ὄνομα ποὺ καταλήγει σὲ -λῆς εἶναι βέβαια ὁ Βενεστινλῆς (ὁ Ῥήγας "Φερραῖος"). Θὰ προσπαθήσω νὰ ἐξακριβώσω ἂν πράγματι ἀνήκει τὸ λάμδα στὴν κατάληξη· μοῦ φαίνεται ἀπίθανο ἕνα ὄνομα νὰ ἔχει ῥίζα σὲ -νλ (Καραμανλ-, Βενεστινλ-) καὶ τὸ τουρκικὸ ἑνικὸ τοῦ Καραμανλῆς εἶναι Karaman, πληθ. Karamanlılar. Πιθανῶς προέρχεται τὸ ἑλληνικὸ ἑνικὸ -λῆς (πληθ. λῆδες) ἀπὸ 'κεῖ. Ὑπάρχουν βιβλία περὶ τῆς ὀνοματολογίας τέλος πάντων καὶ ἴσως νὰ βρῶ ἕνα ἐδῶ στὸ πανεπιστήμιό μου. Ὅ,τι καλό ~Τζέτζης. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzetzes (talk • contribs) 05:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ευχαριστώ για το μήνυμα. Φαίνεται πολύ ενδιαφέρον. Συμφωνώ. Η ρίζα είναι απίθανο να λήγει σε -νλ. ¨Ετσι το -λης σαν κατάληξη είναι πιό πιθανό. Αν βρείς τίποτα ενδιαφέρον θα σε παρακαλούσα να με ενημέρωνες. Και πάλι ευχαριστώ. Με φιλικούς χαιρετισμούς. Τάσος (Dr.K. logos 02:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC))Reply

sorry about that, it was my brother that did that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Busterbaddy1 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's ok Busterbaddy1. Things sometimes happen. Thanks for the nice message. Take care. Dr.K. (logos) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The undo of my change said "Drastic changes need discussion". That makes sense. How do I start a discussion?

Thank you, UserAccount001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by UserAccount001 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dr.K! I think I am leaving. Thank you for your support! Cheers PHG (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Merci beaucoup PHG, even if it is for a very sad notice. It is even sadder for me because I predicted the trajectory of this sad affair from the very beginning. The amount of politics involved as well as bureaucratic involvement made this outcome all but inevitable. I lost interest in the proceedings once I realised that they were unfolding precisely the way I had envisioned. I apologise for not participating more vigourously in your defence but once I predicted the outcome of the case my involvement would have made no difference at all. Despite some good work by CHL and others the parameters of this case were inevitably set from the beginning, even before the new members adjudicated the case. Some of the findings of the case acknowledging your contributions and your value to the project are encouraging and indicate a fresh approach by the new arbs. It would be too much to expect however that the runaway train which started before the new arbs took over would come to a safe stop just because there was a changeover of crew. Anyway, as worn and banal as this may sound, I will miss your presence here, your always polite and cheerful demeanour, and your vast, always interesting and enthusiastic contributions. The lights are going out one by one lately here. Yours is one of the brightest. I really hope you reconsider. However I understand your position and your action. Whatever you choose to do now or in the future I wish you the best. À bien·tôt mon ami. Τάσος. (Dr.K. logos 19:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC))Reply

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is both revised and extended; the full list of new conditions are available by clicking this link. Furthermore, the original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history has been rescinded. PHG is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that PHG has complied with the Committee's restrictions over the past ten months, and that PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Daniel. Dr.K. logos 03:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dr. K, I'm not trying to destroy your work, but you really need to get those footnotes at the bottom and not clutter the body up with hidden quotations. Yes, there was an editor in here a while back who was overzealous about demanding citations on every line, but inserting hidden quotations makes it nearly impossible to line-edit. I don't see why you think you should "report" me for trying to line edit, when it's your cumbersome manner of inserting the citations that leads to the trouble. I'm not assuming this is your way of trying to make it hard for others to edit behind you, but it does have that effect. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• If you could explain to me how to move those quotes to the bottom, I'd be pleased to do the work myself. I regret that I am technically challenged in this respect. I once knew how to do it but can't recall, and am having a hard time finding the appropriate tutorial. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately I think there is no way to do this. If there is I would be glad to let you know. Until then please do not remove the information. You may also wish to ask at the village pump. Dr.K. logos 12:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

There has to be a way; I've done it before. In any case, it isn't helpful to have embedded quotes, because that means only someone trying to edit the text will find the quotes. If you want people to find them, put them at the bottom where they can just click on the footnote and be taken straight to the citation. As someone who's in the straight razor business, I'm grateful for, and impressed by, the work you've done to vastly improve and expand the straight razor article. I disagree with what I presume is your statement about the superiority of thin blades, since it is the consistency and thinness of the cutting edge and the edge-retaining properties of the steel, not the thinness of the blade back of the edge, that determine how well a blade cuts. But you have made this article many times over as informative as it was prior to your contributions, and I am in no way hostile toward you. I regret the technical clumsiness of my edits. I am above all a line-editor, and most of my work is polishing others' work, making prose more understandable and easy to read, correcting punctuation and spelling, etc. If something prevents me from being able to line-edit my reaction is to clear it out with a machete. I will work to preserve the information somehow on the page before removing more material, but it must go, since I plan to edit the page regularly and need to be able to read the bloody text in order to do so. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, everyone can find and read the quotes. They are at the bottom of the article. Take a look now. They are there for all to see at the bottom of the article where all the citations are located. You don't have to edit the article to see them. Many articles have them. Look at Cold Fusion. They are the same. They are always in the body of the article. People edit around them. That's the way it's done. I know of no other way. And it is actually easy to edit with all the quotations present. I do it all the time. You just have to search for a few key words after the end of the quote and you can bypass it. For example, before you go into edit mode find a word after the quote. Now once in edit mode go to your browser's edit button and from the drop down menu choose "Find". In the popup window paste the word that you found and click search. This should take you to a point in the paragraph right after the citation. Dr.K. logos 13:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

(outdent) Also thank you for your kind comments. I also think many of your edits have improved the article and needless to say (but I'll say it nonetheless) I feel no animosity toward you. This is strictly an editing issue with no personal overtones. In response to your thin blade comments, I try to always cite my conclusions. If you find that my conclusions are not supported by the citations please feel free to challenge and/or modify them using other citations. Dr.K. logos 13:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dr. K, you are right, the quotes are always in the hidden text, at least the code is there. If you are going to include the relevant quotes from a source you can't link to online, that's the only way to make the quotes available. I guess the issue is that, if you cite a source that's available online, it saves a lot of space by simply including the outside link in the footnote, and people can go there and read if they want. Otherwise, you can footnote to a work, and if you want the information available to read on Wikipedia, it could be placed in the discussion section for the enlightenment of skeptics who don't have direct access to the printed material you're quoting. Of course, in either case, if you're citing a printed source not available online, the people are trusting you to cite correctly; putting the quotes inside the code doesn't make them more credible. How would you feel about allowing the extensive quotes to be placed on the discussion page?

You are right about the method for searching out a keyword; unfortunately, I use the Safari browser and it's handicapped in this are; it won't search in the edit window. Perhaps I need to switch to FireFox when I edit. But I still think the material shouldn't be stuffed into the invisible code.

Thanks for your consideration. As far as the citations supporting the thin-blades-rule notion, I'll give them a look. I can't come up with an argument for saying personal experience should trump documented statements by experts, but I'm curious if you're going off your understanding of possibly uninformed sources, or if by chance you have experience that makes you confident that thin blades are better cutters? Just curious.

I think we should copy over and continue this discussion on the Straight Razor discussion page. What say ye? --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Preston. Yes let's copy it there. I still think that the citation quotes should remain in the article but let's open a discussion on the talk page of the article and seek other people's opinion. Also I don't know about Safari, but as you say Firefox is great for searching keywords. It has a small window on the lower left of the screen and it automatically goes to the string you are searching for. As far as thin blades I think the fact is (and many sources can be found to support it) that the hollower ground the blade is, the better it is. Hollow ground in my opinion means a a more expensive, and better overall, blade. The blades of my Thiers Issard and DOVO razors are all hollow ground and very thin. No high end manufacturer produces flat ground blades. This is cited in the article. In contrast, the Japanese flat ground razor that I have, is comparatively thicker and does not perform with the same precision or sharpness as the higher end blades, among other things. Anyway let's take this to talk and if you don't mind, please do the honours. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 03:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Tassos! I don't know whether the subject interests you, but since you are an editor whose experience and attitude I value, I thought I'd invite you to have a look at the ongoing second FAC nomination of the Byzantine navy article. Αν έχεις όρεξη, ρίξε μια ματιά. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 14:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Kosta for the invitation and the kind comments. I would be very glad to do this for you. You are an excellent editor and a friend. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 15:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC))Reply

I am pleased to inform you that the article has been successfully promoted. Thanks again for your support! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Don't mention it Constantine. It was the least I could do for such an great article. It is an excellent article and the community rewarded your efforts. It is nice to see that the FA selection process works so well. Congratulations. Well deserved. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 14:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC))Reply

I didn't remove anything in my previous edit, I just reorganized the section to be more clear -- the policies being reverted should be at the end of the discussion, not in the middle of it, followed by more talk about when they were in effect. Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was a misunderstanding on my part. I left a message on your talk page. Dr.K. logos 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No worries.Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Aren't wristwatches a laugh? I too don't believe for a minute that the average "diver's" watch experiences significantly more of the sea than it does of outer space; pity our colleague's erudition doesn't extend to reading up on this and saying something worthwhile. Meanwhile, let's hope that all those macho-looking external rotating timers are used for timing spaghetti or something.

Once, years ago (and well before the mobile phone era), I realized that I (i) really needed a wristwatch, and (ii) had left mine at home. So I popped into an electrical shop and bought the cheapest digital wonder that there was. Recently I've found via Yahoo Auction that it's a (minor) collectors' item. Here in Tokyo the norm still seems a large, glittery watch on a strap loose enough to let the thing flop beyond the shirt cuff, for the admiration and envy of all, and the discomfort (I suppose) of the wearer. Entire magazines are devoted to watchporn, the items typically starting at about a thousand times what I paid for my digital watch and about a hundred times what I'd have to pay for it now. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are right on many levels. For a start who would ever think that people feel so strongly about watches that they would start calling other people paid agents of watch companies? Until your reply I took this a little too strongly, but then I saw the other (humorous) side of it. For which I thank you. It was really funny when you think of it. As far as your other points you are right obviously. The only point I wish to make is that watches are commodities like everything else. Cars, jewellery, clothes etc. And like these they can be classified as luxury or utilitarian. Depending on the classification and mystique assigned to them by the culture, they possess value and their price rises and falls. Whatever you can say about watches can also be repeated for many other products society makes. Why do people collect cars? Why do they collect watches? How or why is a product perceived as a classic? What is a classic? If one can answer these questions or at least understand why they exist, then perhaps one can see why some people are happy with utilitarian watches, other people would not be seen wearing a cheap watch and other people, who cannot make up their minds, simply collect all kinds of watches. Or that others keep changing the watches they wear according to fashion or some other, equally arbitrary, criterion. At least that's my 2¢ worth. Anyway it was a pleasure talking to you as always. Take care and thanks for the nice conversation. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 04:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC))Reply

Please see Talk:Keeley Hazell#Sex tape - BLP vio?. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 12:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great. Thank you for the information. Take care. Dr.K. logos 14:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually myself and Schwertleite (talk · contribs) had been talking about this. I had asked him to re-revert that re addition and had been explaining why. I have asked him to continue on article talk. Mfield (Oi!) 15:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the information. I hope your approach works. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 15:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC))Reply

Just to explain that I just gave a general warning about WP:CIVIL it is not an accusation at any invidual but just trying to stop the discussion drifting. It is sometimes not reasonable to give a personal warning on the article talk page as it sometime inflames the situation hence the general notice to all. The next step would be warning on the appropriate individuals talk pages. Apologies if you took it the wrong way. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much MilborneOne for the clarification. I understand your point completely. No need to apologise, even though your gracious gesture is appreciated. You make a very good point and I accept it. It is my turn to apologise if the tenor of my comments was on the personal warning side and thus inappropriate for a talk page. You are right. I just don't appreciate people who instead of dealing with the topic of a discussion, they try to use ad-hominem methods against the editors who oppose them, especially if they keep doing it repeatedly. I consider this to be very unwarranted and incivil and thus the talk page warning. Your message reminded me, in a very graceful way, that the talk page of an article is for improving the article and not for personal warnings, even under adverse circumstances. You set a high (and difficult) standard. But I agree with you and I will follow it. Thank you and take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC))Reply

This picture is a PR picture and it can be used on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipitytime (talk • contribs) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it cannot be used. The license you have it under (GFDL) is only for completely free pictures. Promo pictures are non-free. See WP:COPYRIGHT. Dr.K. logos 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

By the way, wonderful stance on the whole debate, Dr. K, I honestly wish we could all claim to be as calm, collected and reasonable as you here and I completely mean that. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ι concur--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You just made my day Giorgo. What a wonderful surprise. How are you? Nice to see you in the usual fine form. I can confess now, I really wanted to leave you a message all along but I did not know if it would be prudent to disrupt the poetic solitude of your talk page. Ξέρω επίσης ότι δεν θέλεις να αναμιγνύεσαι πολύ με τα πράγματα εδώ και γι' αυτό δεν θέλησα να σ' ενοχλήσω. Ιδιάιτερα ήθελα να σου πώ πόσο μ' άρεσε το ποίημα του Μίλτου Σαχτούρη. Πολύ επίκαιρο και τοπικά και παγκόσμια. Φίλε μου γειά χαρά και σ' ευχαριστώ και πάλι για την επίσκεψη αυτή. Να τα ξαναπούμε, ελπίζω σύντομα. Τάσος (Dr.K. logos 13:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

Thank you very much 3rdAlcove for your nice comments. I value them even more coming from you. You are one of the people I really value the most around here. BTW I replied to your "cradle" comment on the talk page of Greece. As usual you put it so deliciously, I had to attempt a reply. It was really fun and thank you for that. Take care and see you around. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 00:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

Τάσο μου εννοείται ότι είσαι πάντοτε καλοδεχούμενος και ελπίζω να μην ξαναδιστάσεις ποτέ. Απλώς το πιθανότερο είναι να διαβάζω, να απαντώ, και όταν η συζήτηση κάνει τον κύκλο της να διαγράφω. Σε άρθρο ή σε σελίδα συζήτησης (πέραν της δικής μου και όσων εκτιμώ) δεν πατάω ξανά ούτε με σφαίρες. Όσα συμβαίνουν (και δεν εννοώ την πρόσφατη Μακεδονιάδα) με κάνουν να απέχω συνειδητά από το εγχείρημα. Άντε να 'ρθεις να τα πούμε κι από κοντά--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Σ' ευχαριστώ και πάλι. Θα ακολουθήσω τη συμβουλή σου πολύ ευχαρίστως ώστε να τα λέμε πότε πότε. Όσο για τη Μακεδονιάδα, για να χρησιμοποιήσω αυτή την αμίμητη έκφρασή σου, ήταν βασικά ένα σοκ για μένα γιατί για πρώτη φορά μπήκα σε τέτοια συζήτηση όπου επικρατεί τέτοια αναρχία και προκατάληψη και πολλά άλλα δεινά αλλά δεν θα επεκταθώ. Ας είναι. Γειά χαρά σου και τα ξαναλέμε. Τάσος (Dr.K. logos 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

Ωρέ παιδί μου εφέρανε ένα κουμκουάτ και σε θυμήθηκα, η παναγιά κοντά σου. Νομίζω που εχόρτασες από τα πετεγολέτσια και τσι πομπές τση γουικιπίντιας, ευλογημένε, και είπα μα τον Άι πίπη μου να σου γράψω καμιά μαλαπέρδα να ξεχαστείς γιατί νομίζω που 'χεις μπλέξει με ούλους τσου βουρλισμένους. Στο κάτω κάτω τση γραφής θα 'χεις γκόσει από τσι μπούρδες και φοβούμαι μη σου πέσουνε ωρέ παιδί οι μπάρμπουλες. Απ' ό,τι βλέπω σ' έπιακε κι εσένα το ποντίγιο σου μα κάμε καλά γιατί νομίζω που όποιος μπλέκει με τα τζάτζαλα ρετάρει και δεν αξίζει τον κόπο. Το λέει κάπου κι ο Κουτούζης, η παναγιά κοντά του: "... και τση δίνει ευλογίες ανταμά με παπαρίες"... άκου και το τζίο Γιώργη, κάτι ξέρει...

---

Γιώργο μου είναι πάντα μεγάλη η χαρά μου νε σε βλέπω εδώ. Αν και οφείλω να ομολογήσω ότι μου δημιουργείς ολίγον τι σύμπλεγμα διότι στα Κερκυρέικα εσύ είσαι τόσο πολύ ειδήμων που με κάνει να αναλογίζομαι πως είναι δυνατόν να μην είχα πιάσει ας πούμε το ένα τρίτο απ' όσα κατέχεις. Ας είναι. Τα μυστήρια της ζωής υποθέτω. Σ' ακούω καθαρά και πλήρως. Το αναγνωρίζω ότι έχεις απόλυτο δίκιο. Έχω μπλέξει και το ξέρω. Και προς τι το όφελος; Ίσως πετύχω μία καλύτερη μεταχείριση και μη γκετοποίηση των μειονοτήτων εδώ. Ίσως και όχι. Ο χρόνος θα το δείξει αυτό. Επίσης είναι ένα θέμα αρχής. Θα παρατηρήσω την κατάσταση και θα διαλευκάνω την αξία η όχι της όλης προσπάθειας, ελπίζω σύντομα. Όσο για το κουμ κουάτ αν κατέβεις ποτέ από Κέρκυρα ξέρεις καλά που και με ποιόν θα το πιείς. Η πρόσκληση δεν χρειάζεται ανανέωση γιατί είναι, όπως ξέρεις, διαχρονική. Τα Κερκυρέικά μου δυστυχώς είναι οικτρά γι' αυτό δεν θα σε αποχαιρετήσω με την διάλεκτο, αλλά με το απλώς να σε ευχαριστήσω, όπως πάντα, για την υποστήριξη αυτή. Και στην Κέρκυρα. Τάσος

Το τσάκισα το κουμ κουάτ και θυμήθηκα ακόμα κι αυτά που δεν θυμόμουν ότι θυμόμουν επομένως μην έχεις πρόβλημα. Χτύπα κι εσύ καμιά τσιτσιμπύρα και θα σου έρθουν όλα. Είδα ότι χαλάστηκες και είπα να σου θυμήσω ότι δεν αξίζει τον κόπο. Σκέψου καλύτερα βουτιές στα πράσινα νερά του Μον Ρεπό, λιχουδιές στον Κυρ Γιάννη κοντά στον Ναυτίλο, καφέδες στη Σπιανάδα και στο Αρτ Καφέ, κρέπες στο Καμπιέλο, συναυλίες στο παλιό φρούριο, βουτιές στο κανάλ ντ' αμούρ, εκδρομές στον Παντοκράτορα, καυγάδες στη Λευκίμη, δελφίνι για Παξούς, βάρκα για το Βίδο, μεζέδες στην Κασσώπη... Αν μετά απ΄όλα αυτά δεν χαλαρώσεις τι να πω... Άσε τους Μαίτλαντ ν' ασχολούνται με την ψηφιακή τους πραγματικότητα κι έλα εδώ να χτυπήσουμε κανά γύρο στο Σαλονικιό ή κανά σοφρίτο με θέα το Ιόνιο. Οι εν Χρισ(τ)ώ αδελφοί μπορούν να κάτσουν παρέα με την ψηφιακή τους πραγματικότητα και τη μούχλα της Γηραιάς Αλβιώνος--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ρε παιδί άσε και καμμιά αξιόλογη τοποθεσία για μένα. Τις περίγραψες σχεδόν όλες, εκτός ίσως από το ακρωτήρι Δράστη, Περουλάδες όπου το ηλιοβασίλεμα είναι το κάτι άλλο και τον κόλπο το Αη Γιώργη με την χερσόνησο με τη διπλή παραλία και φυσικά το Αγγελόκαστρο που τώρα στους πρόποδες έχει και εστιατόριο με θέα το γκρεμό και τη θάλασσα. Και με τη τσιτσιμπύρα μου θύμησες που είχα έλθει μια φορά στην Αθήνα και όταν τη παράγγειλα σε ένα εστιατόριο, το γκαρσόνι μου απάντησε "τσιτσιμπύρα; τι τσιτσιμπύρα;" Έχεις τόσο δίκιο. Υπέροχες οι εικόνες αυτές που μου θύμισες. Καμμία κατάσταση δεν μπορεί ποτέ να τις φθάσει η να τις ξεπεράσει, ψηφιακή η όχι. Σίγουρα λοιπόν σε περιμένω εκεί. Αν όχι τίποτ' άλλο απλώς για να μάθω τελικά αν υπάρχει τίποτα στην Κέρκυρα που δεν ξέρεις :) Τάσος

Α, ρε Γιώργη! Όλο φεύγεις και όλο εδώ είσαι! Δεν κόβεις τις μαλακίες για αποσύρση και τέτοια! Μας δουλεύεις τρελά όλους! Δεν ήπιαμε και εκείνον το γαμημένο τον καφέ πριν φύγω. Πάντως, όποιος από τους δυο σας ανέβει κατά Βρυξέλλες πλευρά μέχρι Ιούλιο να μου στείλει αμέσως mail. Κουμκουάτ δεν έχουμε, αλλά καμιά gaufre (και όχι μόνο!) κερνάμε μετά χαράς.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Γιάννη, τι ωραία έκπληξη! Ευχαριστώ πολύ για την πρόσκληση. Δυστυχώς οι Βρυξέλλες δεν βρίσκονται στο πρόγραμμά μου του εγγύς μέλλοντος αν και το gaufre είναι μία ιδιαίτερα ελκυστική και γευστική προοπτική και δη στην πρωτεύουσα της Ευρώπης. Ελπίζω κάποτε αργότερα στο μέλλον να πραγματοποιηθεί. Πάντως, Γιάννη, στην ατζέντα μου το όνομά σου έχει προστεθεί σαν ένας μόνιμος καλεσμένος από μεριά Κέρκυρα. Γειά χαρά σου. Τάσος (Dr.K. logos 15:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

Hello Tasos. While I respect your disagreement, let me just make a small note on process here. I think we were all hoping that the poll would end with somebody stepping in and making a visible "call" on it by formally closing it. That would have made the following steps easier for all of us. Administrators were asked several times to do so, but declined. In the absence of such a formal outside closure, we are left to our own devices. It so happens that there is actually even an old Arbcom decision specifying that polls can have binding outcomes even without outside closure. Article-content straw polls are different from AfDs, requested-move polls and the like insofar as their technical implementation doesn't require admin intervention, so it is expected that the "involved" participants can figure out for themselves what the result of the poll is.

The relevant Arbcom decision is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions and says:

After extended discussion, to be effective, the consensus decision making process must close. In many Wikipedia decision making processes, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, an administrator or bureaucrat "closes" the discussion by evaluating the arguments, considering which alternatives have more support and announces a decision, which may be "no consensus", an outcome which, depending on the context, usually has definite consequences. In other, less structured, situations, as in the case of how to structure the titles of television episodes, there is no formal closer. Nevertheless, considering the alternatives proposed, the extended discussion engaged in, expressions of preference, there is a result which should be respected. Absent formal closing, it is the responsibility of users to evaluate the process and draw appropriate conclusions.

It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.

Don't tell me that Arbcom decision is rather weird; I find it pretty weird in its wording myself, but yeah, for better or worse, that seems to be the current rules of the game.

So, under these circumstances, I will adamantly maintain my position that the poll has indeed ended in a clear mandate. You can call it a "consensus of everybody but a single faction for removal to f.Y.", or you can call it a "no consensus for treating Greece any different from other articles", but what you can definitely not call it is a "consensus for maintaining that exception". The Greece exception was never consensual but only barely tolerated to begin with; we now know more clearly how little consensus it has.

I will not cease editing accordingly. You will need to take me to Arbcom if you want to stop me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Future for the courtesy. I will read your rather lengthy message as soon as I get some free time, because I happen to be slightly busy at present. However I do appreciate the gracious gesture. Take care for now. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

I'm going to stay out of the section that you started on my "proposal". You stated my last compromise position accurately so there's no need for clarification. Let's see how it flies. I think that arbitration will still be necessary, though. After so many people said they wanted to wait until after Easter to continue, I'm a bit surprised to see the level of activity over there. I wish you and yours a very happy Easter season (whichever weekend you're celebrating). (Taivo (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

Thank you very much Taivo. Happy Easter to you too. As far as my proposal I just did it for this article alone. However, as you know, this debate has raised a host of other issues that only arbitration may be able to address. So it may well end up there. I agree. Thanks for the message and all the best of the (combined) Easter season to you too. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 17:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

The April 2009 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ευχαριστώ Γιάννη. Τάσος (Dr.K. logos 02:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

I am not particularly concerned if you choose to trust the tourist information window implicitly. It may interest you to know that the land was in fact a gift from Petros Vrailas-Armenis, who was my great-great-grandfather, and that Sissi gave him three diamond encrusted broaches, as a gift (one for each of his children), in return. They have the Austrian Royal insignia on them and my family's remains with us to this day. Vrailas was not in need of the money, nor did he want Sissi as a neighbour. However, as a politician and prominent figure within Corfu and Greece, Vrailas was pressured to give up the land - it was deemed that having Sissi as a resident on Corfu would be positive politically. Stubborn as he was he gave the land away rather than sell it. I tell you this because, as someone who has been editing the page for a number of years, you obviously have a personal interest in the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsmakeadifference (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the message and the courtesy of letting me know this. I really appreciate it. Your story is fascinating and I have no reason to disbelieve you. I also believe the citation you provided. The only problem is that the Vrailas family papers are unpublished. As such they cannot be used as inline reference because they cannot be verified independently. Is there a historian who mentions these papers and/or the facts pertaining to Sissi and how your great-great-grandfather gave the land to her? We could use this as a source instead. I know that Corfiote historians such as Spyros Katsaros wrote extensively about Corfu. This important event may very well be referenced in their works. Unfortunately the works of Katsaros are out of print so I cannot get them, even though I looked for them for a very long time. There are some details about some other stories that I would like to read about but so far I haven't been able to find any copies. In case you find anything mentioning your family papers please let me know. Thank you very much. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 19:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

Thank you for your message and your advice on how best to use Wikipedia. I am not a big user, in fact I'm not sure I've edited much at all, but, in future, if I do edit I will be sure to use your advice. It is a pleasure to offer you this extra information, I thought you might find it interesting. I am not sure about this information being formally published, however, I will re-edit the article if I find that it is. All the best Letsmakeadifference (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was very kind of you to share the information that was included in your family papers. I found the details you provided fascinating and providing a rare glimpse into an unknown chapter of the history of Corfu. I am personally disappointed that we cannot include this information in the article, especially because I believe you. But I am confident we can find a Corfiote historian who may well have covered these details as you described. Take care and I hope I'll see you again. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 06:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

A note of caution. You appear to have reverted 3 times in a row on the Jim Cramer article. This is allowed in the case of actual vandalism copyright or BLP issues, but not for content and sourcing disputes. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the notice. But if you noticed the IP is adding content like "Booyah free zone" and "Or maybe you want to shower Skeedaddy with praise? This is another segment where you – the loyal Home Gamer – get unfettered access to Jim’s stock market genius. Hey, we don’t call it the most interactive show on television for nothing." If you think this is content to be put into Wikipedia I simply quit. Or you may want to warn and revert this user so that you can relieve the pressure from me instead for warning me for reverting such garbage and calling it a content dispute. Dr.K. logos 23:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm taking a closer look. Some of those phrases do seem to be valid, as they are in the Mad Money article and also get Google hits. Soe of the material appears to be redundant with the reference to the "main article". I'll look further and might roll back to prior version. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. If you think that the material is ok, I'll defer to your judgement especially since I am not a Cramer expert and I was just doing some community service by patrolling the article. Thank you very much for your help. Take care. Dr.K. logos 23:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have rolled back the changes by 128.208.36.84 (talk) due to copyright violation. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great. Thanks for having a second look and helping out. I really appreciate it. Sorry for the tone of my first reply. All the best. Dr.K. logos 23:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Move of the article Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia by User:ChrisO and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--Yannismarou (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am one of the participants in the above case and I received your message on my talkpage but when I went to the arbitration page my statement was not there. Could you please include it? Thanks. Dr.K. logos 04:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done, sorry for missing out on it. The fact that you sign as "Dr.K." and had "statement by Dr.K." threw me off ;). Its all fixed with a slight modification to your header to make it clearer that you are one of the parties to the case. —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know. Sometimes it happens. : ) Thank you very much for fixing it so fast. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

Means "Finding of Fact". John Carter (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain this John. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 16:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Alex Jones (radio host), following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just got a warning from ChrisO for 'Original Research.' I was editing the list in the Macedonia Name Dispute page and I had just removed a reference used fort he Dutch position as it was a dead link. Then I noticed the two GOVT references on this page: [[1]] both point to Denmark using FYROM or FYR Macedonia yet Denmark was in the list under 'List of countries to be sorted.' I moved Denmark to countries which use FYROM, ChrisO immediately reverted stating you need a source that states how Denmark uses the name, not infer it yourself from a random document. I then informed him, the 'random document were two Danish Govt Pages that were already there as references concerning Denmark and reverted. ChrisO then proceeded to revert and dish me out with an 'Original Research Warning.' This time he changed his story and stated: you are inferring Denmark's position, but the documents you cite do not say anything about whether Denmark recognises the constitutional name or not. This is interesting. Most of the list is made up of Embassy pages using the word Macedonia, and immediately they are on the list, under countries who recognise the Republic of Macedonia. I wonder how many of those editors received warnings from ChrisO? I am going to make this action of ChrisO stick as his behaviour in general has downgraded the neutrality Administrators are supposed to have. Any help on how to make him come to account for this action would be most appreciated. He has put the case down here:[[2]] Reaper7 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear Tasoskessaris,

I deleted the following sentence from the Wikipedia article on Shorthand:

'Speedwriting by Emma Dearborn requires memorization of a unique abbreviation to a corresponding word.'

The reason I deleted it is that it is untrue. It says, or at least implies, that each word has to be learned individually. In reality, Speedwriting, like almost all shorthand systems, relies on the application of rules to generate its abbreviations. You memorise the rules, then you can write the words. Each rule applies to many words. You don't have to memorise the individual words. Of course, as you learn and use a shorthand system, the way that some frequently used words are written become familiar to you. But that is different from requiring memorisation of a unique abbreviation for the word.

Like most shorthands, Speedwriting does employ some short forms for some very common words, e.g. 'of', 'have' & 'very' are written as 'v', 'can' is 'k' and '+' is 'and', but even these are fairly logical, based on phonetic letters or already familiar abbreviations and do not require much memorisation. Most words, though, rely on the application of rules. For example, write a word, leaving out the short vowels in the middle of a word, so 'bill' is 'bl', 'big' is 'bg' & 'book' is 'bk'. I would hardly call these unique abbreviations requiring memorisation.

Also, I found the inclusion of the name of a specific shorthand system at that early juncture in the article a trifle strange.

(About the spelling of 'memorise' & 'memorisation'. We use the 's' instead of the 'z' in Australia.)

Thank you,

Cassyjanek (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)CassyjanekReply

Fair enough. Even though I am not a shorthand expert I think you are knowledgeable enough about the subject and that you make some good points. I reverted you because you did not provide an edit summary and thus I did not see the reason behind the removal of the text. Now that you explained it to me please feel free to redo your edit. Thank you for your message and best regards down under. Dr.K. logos 05:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I deleted for a second time, again due to a lack of edit summary. To avoid going back and forth, I'll revert my revert and add the reason on behalf of Cassyjanek this time.—Teahot (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is very nice of you. I agree. Take care. Dr.K. logos 02:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Julian, that was lightning fast. I am honoured. Take care and thank you very much. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 23:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC))Reply

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply ~~~~~

Thank you LHvU. It was a pleasure participating at your RfA. Nice picture choice. Looks like a really nice workplace. The brimstone is already there. The only thing mising is the fire. Must be the next step up I guess. Dr.K. logos 17:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking on the task of getting this article in non-copy vio shape. I have no time to research and reference the incident and was only comfortably writing up the geography with limited references. --KP Botany (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply