User talk:Dr.K./Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

DYK for Abalos Mensa

On 22 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Abalos Mensa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Martian wedge-shaped mound Abalos Mensa has been described as "an enigmatic wedge of material"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abalos Mensa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Abalos Mensa), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Abalos Colles

On 22 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Abalos Colles, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some of the mounds of the Martian formation of Abalos Colles are similar to volcanoes in Iceland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abalos Colles. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Abalos Colles), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 12:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanx

Thank you for watching over me while I was asleep! --T*U (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@TU-nor: You are very welcome T*U. It was a pleasure. Sorry for not replying earlier but your message was buried with the other messages and I just saw it now. It's been a really busy week. :) Take care. Dr. K. 01:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A note..

Hi, In future when reverting acutely disruptive edits of the like at here, please do a favour to the user by bringing him/her to AIV!Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Meh, this editor stopped at one edit, so I thought I would give them another chance. As backup, this is such a highly-visible article I had no doubt that this disruption would be caught fast-enough. Dr. K. 16:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Rupes Tenuis

On 23 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rupes Tenuis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rupes Tenuis (pictured), the Martian north polar scarp, may have been in retreat since the Late Amazonian period? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rupes Tenuis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rupes Tenuis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Reporting a few users

This user, Ninjoust, added Arabic script transliteration for Buryat in this edit. Also, this user added Hangul and Katakana transcriptions, seen here. These writing systems were never used to write this language. Tuvan language never used Arabic. He made these edits here and here. He vandalized the National Anthem of Mongolia page with this edit.

Andrey Sabirov is putting unsourced content online. He has gotten warning several times and is in a content dispute with another user (Ninjoust). Also who ever these guys are.Cbear12345 vandalized a page in Kuna people and RainbowSilver2ndBackup vandalized Anthem of the Republic of Buryatia. Uhj122 was adding unsourced content to Kyrgyzstan before despite being warned multiple times. How to stop them?

Thanks,
Чибуево Жаңшулокикомев (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Чибуево Жаңшулокикомев. I reported him/her for refactoring comments. Let's see what happens. Dr. K. 05:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Ogygis Undae

On 26 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ogygis Undae, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Martian dunes of Ogygis Undae consist of two different sand types, and look similar to the dunes in Grand Falls, Arizona? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ogygis Undae. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ogygis Undae), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent disruption

Thank you for reverting recent disruption in Delvina etc.. It's sad that a specific editor struggles to convince our community that good articles should satisfy vandals & all this kind of disruptive SPAs.Alexikoua (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome Alexi. It was the least I could do. These Illyria vandals are hard-wired to erase any mention of Ancient Greece and replace it with Illyria and/or Albania. Heck, they even made Korkyra Illyrian in a vandalism that remained since last January until I caught it earlier today. Thank you also for your great work in that toxic area, dealing with all types of disruption. Dr. K. 16:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Why

Why did you have change that article's name. Gertiu32 (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

What name? Dr. K. 18:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

After checking your contributions, I see what you are trying to ask me. You are wrong. I am not the guy you are supposed to ask. I had moved the article to the same title that you just did. You should ask this guy, who, by the way, had done a large number of such disruptive article moves that day. Dr. K. 19:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

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

Cupcak (talk)

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

Justin Trudeau

Hello,

Thank you for your message. I want to bring to your attention that I followed the rules by leaving a message on the other editor's page; it did however never get a response. That is why I brought back the reverted page.

Now I see you brought back the old picture; can you tell me why? The quality is not as good and it is two years old.

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would also have removed it. Too comical for an article on a country's leader. Jim1138 (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely Jim. However, this is a favourite pastime in this article apparently. Dr. K. 23:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

suppressed kurds?

On an edit of mine for the Turkish Republic you mentioned I "suppressed kurds" by writing "one fifths"? Could you Please Elaborate?

Hmm. You can read one of my edit summaries, but not the next one? Dr. K. 15:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

DRN Comments

The reason why I commented on your DRN comment to say that it was long and commented on contributors was that I understood your comments. The comments by some of the other editors were incomprehensible, so that I instead commented on their difficulty with English. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough Robert. After my reply there, I hope you got some idea of what they were saying about me. Dr. K. 02:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Mountain Olympus

You can check every greek site and you will see that the maximum elevation is 2917 meters. I guess you americans are confused with your inaccurate and pathetic "feet and inches" system. Shame for this site who is supposed to be a encyclopedia but in reality it's nothing close to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkp2135 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wkp2135: You can check every greek site and you will see that the maximum elevation is 2917 meters. I think you are really confused. You changed the height from 2917 to 2918 here with edit-summary: Correction of the maximum elevation in mountain olympus.. In your subsequent edit you changed the height from 2918 to 2917 here even though the existing reference says: In total there are 52 peaks ranging from altitudes of 760 m to 2918 m which combined with the sheer ravines create scenes of unique beauty.. Did you bother to check what the reference said? I guess not. In your next edit, again, you changed the height from 2918 to 2917 here. I understand that someone may be confused. That's fine. But to be confused and also start personal attacks, that's unacceptable per WP:NPA. Please shape up. Dr. K. 19:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC) I don't know to edit on wikipedia very well that's why i made many changes, i was confused. Still your source is wrong the maximum height is 2917m. Don't trust the first source you will see you have to make a deep research.

Semi-protection request

Hello sir. Can please semi-protect the Kurdistan Workers' Party? It was semi-protected but after the protection has expired, the page has become the target of anonymous disruptive editors again. I think it should be indef semi-protected. Regards. 184.66.8.111 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome, but I've been on Wikipedia as a member providing edits and articles for 15 years already! Vanderloo (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. That's why I gave you a "belated" welcome. I was surprised to see noone had welcomed you in so many years of service and your talkpage was red. :) Dr. K. 17:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment, not really on Mhhossein

I would suggest telling Mhhossein to go scron a garflebag, but that would raise more questions that it answers. Anyway, as I mentioned, that isn't such a good idea, because it distracts the toves, and the bandersnatch then shows up and burbles. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert: Lol! These are some artfully rendered, although not very meaningful, sentences. Well done. :) Dr. K. 01:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't invent any words. Ivanvector mentioned scronning a garflebag. Dodgson describes an encounter with a bandersnatch, and quotes an oviform don as describing toves. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. They are characters from Carroll's novels. Dr. K. 03:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda: Thank you very much Gerda. As the seasons change, your welcome presence and elegant gifts are all the more appreciated. Take care. Dr. K. 21:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Armenia

Then you should probably also "correct" the page on the Nagorno-Karabakh War, where it clearly state the de facto annexation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukogodo (talk • contribs)

Well, I checked Nagorno-Karabakh and it doesn't have the word "annexation" in it. The war article has a single reference by open democracy, an opinion piece, which calls it annexation. That's not strong enough to be carried to the country article, especially for such a disputed topic, also covered by Arbcom DS under AA2. In any case, this is the wrong place for such a discussion. If you have further doubts, you are welcome to open a discussion at the relevant talkpage. Dr. K. 15:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Arrogance

Curb your arrogance. Randal Oulton (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yup. These are the thanks I get for leaving you a nice message on your talkpage, to engage in reasoned and policy-based discussion, instead of edit-warring to restore accusations of "scrubbing" and "whitewashing" against fellow editors, which you then summarily reverted. I quote from my message: Opening a new thread, while ignoring an existing one, accusing your fellow editors of "scrubbing" and "whitewashing" is not constructive or befitting a collaborative project such as this which depends on advancing logical arguments in a reasoned discussion, not on polemic statements against other editors. What's wrong with that? And why do you think that my polite message regarding your talkpage polemics at Julie Payette, is an indication of arrogance? Dr. K. 05:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

...Says the user who sniffs at the work of other editors as "worthy of Pravda in its heyday, well done". Arrogance, indeed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) Pravda was a work of art - it wasn't so simple as whitewashing but rather viewing matters via a proper progressive soviet socialist viewpoint. This could be taken as a compliment.Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a great point. Thank you Sangdeboeuf. This Cold War-era rhetoric, the equivalent of Godwin's law on the left side of the political spectrum, is a polemic which should not be employed in any discussion on Wikipedia. It fails a multiple array of policies starting with FORUM, AGF, CIV, NPA etc., and it is woefully outdated. Dr. K. 07:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Lol, Icewhiz. Your sense of humour is impeccable. It makes scrubbing and whitewashing sound almost glamorous. Perhaps I should look into this a bit more thoroughly. :) Dr. K. 08:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Why?

Dr.K. why did you revert my edits? In Wikipedia in Portuguese they are like that, have you at least already checked the veracity of the content? Marcelo Mendes 678 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marcelo. This, as you know, is the English Wikipedia. The articles you are editing have their own dates which have formed through use of reliable sources and consensus. If you want to change them, please go to the talkpages of the articles involved and present your case. What exists in other wikipedias, is not really important here. Dr. K. 01:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for not seeing your warning sooner

My apologies, I just realized that my warning to the disruptive user was unecessary; yours was just added a few minutes prior to mine: [1] Consider your warning valid and mine invalid. My apologies again. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 07:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Arabian sources of Euclid

The quote is not really Thomas Heath but Al-Qifti from History of Learned Men (See the article's Talk Page) I could not find an english version of History of Learned Men online to point the actual page of the quote that Mr Heath refers to. His dismissal on the source as "arabian tendency to romance" is his own view and not based on actual evidence.ViamarisBalbi (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/justin-bieber this reference my previous edit I don't know how to write reference Gunjan surti (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Added to the article. Thanks. Dr. K. 05:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Just dropping by...

...to say "It's a pleasure to meet your acquaintance (online)." ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Atsme. Likewise. Nice meeting you, as you say, online. :) Thanks for dropping by. Take care. Dr. K. 22:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

macedonian are simply not greeks :)

hi u said my edit wasn't "constructive" well u obviously don't know what youre talking about because I am Macedonian and I tell you for a fact that we are not greeks so don't remove my edit >:O — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaylaholodolan (talk • contribs) 09:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Naked picture

I nominated File:Naturism in Europe.jpg for deletion on Commons and it has now been deleted, so you shouldn't see it being spammed around again. Ping @Malcolmxl5: you can remove this from the MediaWiki:Bad image list. Home Lander (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander and Malcolmxl5: Good to know. Thank you both. Take care guys. Dr. K. 00:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

ViamarisBalbi is back under two new sockpuppet accounts

I thought I would let you know that an account called "CalinicoFire", which is very obviously operated by the same person as User:ViamarisBalbi (whom I believe you will recall as the one who kept edit-warring on the insistence that Thales of Miletus was actually a Phoenician) has been engaging in similar behavior at the article Pythagoras, asserting that Pythagoras's father was definitely from Tyre, when, in fact, his origins are disputed. I checked both users' edit histories and noticed that both accounts have made a significant proportion of their edits to the article Khouri.

When I went to that article, I saw that another user called "Enion Glas" has recently made a large number of edits there. I checked that account's edit history and found that it had just added a massive new section to the article Tyrrhenians claiming that the name "Tyrrhenian" was actually a name for the Phoenicians of Tyre, not the Etruscans, as is believed by most scholars. The section the user added cites some extremely fringe sources, such as The Phoenician Origins of Britons, Scots, and Anglo-Saxons--Discovered by Phoenician and Sumerian Inscriptions in Britain, by Preroman Briton Coins and A Mass of New History by L.A. Waddell. This is curious, since the user registered under the account CalinicoFire just wrote a massive new section at Talk:Pythagoras defending the edit I reverted, in which the user argues that a statement from Diogenes Laertius stating that Pythagoras's father was a "Tyrrhenian" might actually mean that he was from Tyre.

I think that, based on the evidence I have presented here, it is blaringly obvious that both of these accounts are sockpuppets of ViamarisBalbi and I thought I would make sure you knew about them. I do not have any experience with tracking down sockpuppets, so I do not know what exactly I am supposed to do, but I hoped you might. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Thank you for your great work Katolophyromai. I got them bagged and ready to go. Take care. Dr. K. 01:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Katolophyromai, your suspicion was correct. Next time, please go to WP:SPI, read the instructions, and start the case if you have evidence, as you did in this case. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Ha, K, you already started one! Well done my friend. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Lol. Doc, I thought you knew. I saw the socks getting indeffed, so I thought you saw the SPI. Then, I saw the SPI clerk pinging you, and I thought you were going there to finalise the report and report any sleepers etc.. Anyway, it's always great talking to an old friend, especially on my talk. Take care Doc and thank you for shutting down the sockfarm. Dr. K. 01:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Dr.K.. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dr.K.. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Meghan Markle

As one of the most effective Wikipedia editors, please look at the problems with this page.

One editor alone, User:Surtsicna, has removed the entire ancestry section on Markle's page.

She may well remove all ancestry sections from the "commoner" wives of Prince Edward, Prince William Prince Charles and the ex-wife of Prince Andrew.

This editor believes that these ladies have an ancestry that is "not relevant" to their previous working life or as royals.

This editor appears to accept a one-sentence reference to Markle's black ancestry - but not her well-researched and oft-published white ancestry which has links to a number of notable people with their own Wikipedia pages.

Markle's white aristocratic ancestry was published in detail in the Washington Post, the New York Times - https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/11/30/us/ap-us-royal-engagement-markle-genealogy.html - and on page 5 on the 19th November edition of the UK Daily Telegraph. These articles, and many others, outlined how Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are distant cousins through Sir Philip Wentworth and Lady Mary de Clifford, daughter of Lord Clifford.

Markle's descent from Christopher Hussey (died 1686) was also reported by the UK daily telegraph and mayor USA media outlets including the Washington Post et al.

All of these facts were obliterated by this editor.

The UK Daily Telegraph article presented a family tree (page 5) which highlights and discusses that Markle's own family were aware of their descent from Captain Christopher Hussey (died 1686) through Markle's grt grt grt grandmother Mary Hussey Smith (died 1908).

I have tried to humour User:Surtsicna, but she is insistent and removed the ancestry section without consent.

We believe and so do others (see Meghan Markle Talk page) that she is absolutely wrong in removing the ancestry page and those of the afore mentioned ladies.

All of those many, many readers of major, respected newspapers in both the UK and USA need to see this information on Wikipedia, if this encyclopedia is to EVER be considered "reliable".

So-called "commoner" Sophie, Countess of Wessex has her own ancestry section.

Like Markle, she has noble ancestors and proven royal descent - Burke's Peerage is quoted as the source.

Therefore, Markle should too. She is descended from nobility who have their own Wikipedia pages. Her proven descendant from Edward III according to the highly respected New England Historic Genealogical Society was widely reported by these major global newspapers and on major television news stations - http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/11/30/meghan-markle-royal-genetics/.

We are hoping that you can help her understand that her bias is wrong.

Thank you Srbernadette (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Edward Snowden

Thanks for your interest in editing Edward Snowden, which is presently being shortened in accordance with ongoing discussion at Talk:Edward_Snowden#Still_very_long. I invite you to join the colloquy. KalHolmann (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, and the kind invitation, but I will pass on the offer. I didn't know that there was such a discussion, so I was a bit worried when I saw such massive removals and an edit-summary starting with "replace content" which normally is bad news, but then I checked your edit-summaries more thoroughly and I understood what you were trying to do. Best regards. Dr. K. 03:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Adam Strange

Seriously man, the edit to his nonexistent skill set when I applied them were based off of reliable sources. I listed and categorized the different appearances of where and when he showcased those traits I keep trying to make. So how is my research faulty/flawed or in all retrospect discreditable in any way?--75.168.99.246 (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It needs trimming. Normally we don't read comic books and then report on the findings. But I restored it, based on the hope that we can eventually find secondary sources reporting on his skill set. It also needs a little bit of copyediting. Thanks for the note. Best regards. Dr. K. 16:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Article on Leonard Euler

The bit where the article mentions Riemann is mistaken as Euler died before Riemann was born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.220.74.7 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears it is a posthumous connection. He didn't know about Riemann during his lifetime but his product formula was connected to Riemann's zeta function by other mathematicians. Please see also Proof of the Euler product formula for the Riemann zeta function. Best regards. Dr. K. 18:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Augustus

Dr.K., I think this edit was out of line. Rather than redacting someone else's comment, an appropriate reaction might have been "oops, I was mistaken; I didn't notice that you are not actually a new user". Feel free to delete this comment after reading it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Melanie: Thank you Melanie. I never revert comments from editors like yourself. :) In any case, you make a fair comment, but consider this: In this account's case, I noticed he was editing from 2015 but they had only 75 edits. In this account's case, I meant "new" as in "newbie", or inexperienced. Also this account has made three comments since his revert on the article. One comment is on the article talk. The other two, are on his talkpage. In all three comments he is using the same PAs against me. I find this unacceptable. Dr. K. 01:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see. It has become a kind of recurring theme, hasn't it? --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Melanie: Exactly. Thank you again Melanie. Dr. K. 01:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Cabaret du Ciel at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, two noms, including my DYK, were removed in this edit. Dr. K. 23:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

On your edit...

Dr.K., Admittedly, I may have acted rash and have decided to not act without there being a clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraticSocialism (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@DemocraticSocialism: Thank you DS for the courtesy note. I am impressed by your civility and honesty. It was a pleasure meeting you. Take care. Dr. K. 01:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Polity of the Lacedaemonians

On 14 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Polity of the Lacedaemonians, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Xenophon's Polity of the Lacedaemonians is the only surviving constitution of ancient Sparta? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Polity of the Lacedaemonians. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Polity of the Lacedaemonians), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 06:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Cabaret du Ciel

Thanks for the response, but I was referring to the article, not the hook! Gatoclass (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Gosh. I think I got it now. Just added it to the article. Pinging again, just in case. Thank you again Gatoclass. Best regards. Dr. K. 08:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks much better. I will try to finish the review today or tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Great. Thank you again Gatoclass. All the best. Dr. K. 08:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017 - DRN

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 15:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Robert E. Lee

As a recent contributor to Robert E. Lee, you are receiving this notice for an RfC at of a proposed restatement of a wp:primary source which contains more points than the existing block quote from the letter. The primary source is a 1856 letter of Lee’s to his wife from Texas as found at Alexander Long, Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history (1886), p. 82-83. Opponents have seen wp:original research in the proposal as drawing conclusions not found in the primary source. A rewrite of the first proposal follows an edit break. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bzuk. Best of the Season to you and yours, and a Happy New Year! Dr. K. 20:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

AEK B.C.

Dr.K, I think that you are wrong that you reject right informations about AEK B.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F1:1403:F00:8494:2A32:EA0D:D4E3 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Dr.K.. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 2,661 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thank you for the invitation. I am a little busy at present, but I will try my best to help out. Take care. Dr. K. 03:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 01:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much PaleoNeonate. Happy New Year to you too. Take care. Dr. K. 15:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

N,N-Dimethyltryptamine

The reliable source of the content was me.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

Did you carefully weigh the source, in this case? Did you ask me how I knew the fact? Or did you just wade in, revert my edit and start dishing out warnings?

There has to be some level of trust in one's fellow editors. "Please do not...", "You appear to be repeatedly...", "this is known as "edit warring"" lol - your patronising tone does you no favours.

Happy New Year. Eddy Tor (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

sealand

thanks for reverting that article - you beat me to it. Sorry for any ec. 188.6.124.129 (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thank you for your message. Best regards. Dr. K. 07:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

apologies

I just wanted to apologize if my recent comment sounded untoward. You once took me to ANI on charges of edit-warring whereas I thought you could've recognized my good-faith and constructiveness of my reverts. Anyway I hope we can engage with more good-faith and positivity. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Expectant of Light for your note. I accept your apology and your good faith. For what it's worth, it was not ANI but WP:3RRN where I made my report. I made it because the essence of edit-warring is that it doesn't matter if you are right, or wrong, while making the reverts; only the number of reverts matters. I thought that you were reverting too much, but, after our discussion, I realise that perhaps I should have talked to you about stopping the reverts, before I made my report at 3RRN. So I am sorry for not taking a bit more time discussing this with you. In any case, I see that you are a capable and intelligent editor. I am always willing to work with editors like you. Take care. Dr. K. 08:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ri-se

So let me get this straight: You say my article will be deleted (which it won't just yet, cuz it's still under discussion,) so you take out Ri-se, and forget about the other 7? Ladies' Code fan? (It's okay, I'm one, too.)-K-popguardian (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@K-popguardian: K-popguardian, you crack me up. :) I'm no Ladies' Code fan. I just don't think that category of yours will survive deletion. I am really sorry. I don't want to disappoint you, because I know you're a good editor. But that category, I don't know. In any case, as far as the other 7 singers listed in the category, I am not going to follow you around reverting you. I will not do that to you. I just have Kwon Rise watchlisted, that's why I reverted there. Anyway, take care, and have a Happy New Year. Dr. K. 18:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

K. You, too. (Yas, no disbandments so far!)-K-popguardian (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Long time no talk

Hi Dr.K. I just wanted to catch up with you and stop by and say hello after a long time. (N0n3up (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC))

Hi N0n3up. Indeed, I haven't talked to you for such a long time. How have you been? I trust everything is well with you. It's always nice talking to you. Happy New Year by the way. Take care. Dr. K. 05:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, everything is great. I still edit probably not as much as I used to, but still make a few edits here and there. I hope your new year is going well so far. (N0n3up (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC))

Yes, it is. Thank you N0n3up. Glad to hear you are well. Take care. Dr. K. 06:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Cabaret du Néant

On 10 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cabaret du Néant, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that patrons of the Cabaret du Néant (Cabaret of Nothingness) drank beverages in the "Intoxication Hall" (pictured), which had chandeliers made of human bones and coffin-shaped tables? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cabaret du Néant. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cabaret du Néant), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Cabaret du Ciel

On 11 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cabaret du Ciel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that inside the Cabaret du Ciel (Cabaret of Heaven), beer was served, and the entertainment included depictions of angels playing music and Saint Peter sprinkling holy water from the heavens? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cabaret du Ciel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cabaret du Ciel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing Problems

Hi Dr.K. I was editing my own sandbox and I noticed that the Architecture and Cuisine sections and the contents for Sports were missing [2]. I think there is a bug or technical problem but I'm not entirely sure. (N0n3up (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC))

Not sure what you were trying to do N0n3up. Do you mean not all copied material was pasted to your sandbox? Dr. K. 02:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The pasting is not the problem. What I mean is when I click to publish the changes, there is a lot of missing contents. (N0n3up (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC))

If information gets lost after saving the edit, this is a problem for the Village pump. Dr. K. 06:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

hello Dr. K I have something strange to report

I was on the article for the Hellenic Armed Forces and wherever I clicked on the article I was being linked to a vulgar facebook paged called "Gaynegros" my first instinct told me some rouge editor vandalized the page so I went to check the revision history and no changes such as this were made, and strangely when I viewed past versions of the article it would still be linked to the vulgar facebook page, meaning that it couldn't have been a rouge editor, this is very strange, I checked some other articles but haven't seen it on them, is it possible wikipedia was maybe hacked or something, I should mention i also thought maybe my PC had malware or something but the only time this happened was on this single Wikipedia page, also I know it was the page itself because the links on the leftside under the wikipedia logo all still functioned as they were supposed to, it was only the article itself that was being linked, very strange I don't know what you could do to investigate it but I just wanted to warn someone, the issue seems to be gone now for the time being. SJCAmerican (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

An update: it seems a user was vandalizing one of the templates on the page for NATO, it has been corrected and the user seems banned so no need to look into it ! SJCAmerican (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ROPE?

Have we given this editor enough rope? It is very apparent their editing pattern here is to make a point. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kansas. He appears to have slowed down recently. But, overall, his edits are indeed pointy. I think more time is needed before any further action. Dr. K. 01:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Dr K,

Can I ask why you deleted the pics? These photos are no longer copyrighted in Italy and are therefore in the public domain. See below:

This photograph is subject to the provisions of Italy's Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights because it was either created in Italy or may be considered an Italian work within the meaning of Italian law (Art. 189). Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Works of photographic art are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are only protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92).

Simple photographs are defined by the law as "images of persons, or of aspects, elements or events of natural or social life, obtained by photographic or analogous processes, including reproductions of works of figurative art and stills of cinematographic film" (Art. 87).

If this image meets the definition of a simple photograph and was created prior to 1976 and published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989, then it was out of copyright in Italy on the date of restoration (January 1, 1996) and is currently in the public domain in the United States (17 U.S.C. § 104A).

Can you clarify this.

Thanks.

Praxiphane

Copyright images?

Dr K,

Can I ask why you deleted the pics? These photos are no longer copyrighted in Italy and are therefore in the public domain. See below:

This photograph is subject to the provisions of Italy's Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights because it was either created in Italy or may be considered an Italian work within the meaning of Italian law (Art. 189). Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Works of photographic art are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are only protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92).

Simple photographs are defined by the law as "images of persons, or of aspects, elements or events of natural or social life, obtained by photographic or analogous processes, including reproductions of works of figurative art and stills of cinematographic film" (Art. 87).

If this image meets the definition of a simple photograph and was created prior to 1976 and published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989, then it was out of copyright in Italy on the date of restoration (January 1, 1996) and is currently in the public domain in the United States (17 U.S.C. § 104A).

Can you clarify this.

Thanks.

Praxiphane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praxiphane (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I can. 1. Nothing of what you wrote here appears on the images you uploaded at Commons. At Commons you simply released the images under CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. See this file for example. 2. The same file has a watermark which includes the copyright symbol with the description "Archivio Centrale dello Stato". This means that the website where the images are hosted ("Archivio Centrale dello Stato") claims them as their copyright. This doesn't look to me like a case of copyright-free pictures. Dr. K. 03:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Dr K. I'll be more careful in future.

Praxiphane (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You are very welcome Praxiphane. Thank you for your understanding. Dr. K. 19:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I see you and I had similar experiences with Simply-the-truth. You took your concerns to ANI. You can see the efforts I made at Talk:Jack Letts. In some ways dealing with blantant vandals can be easier than trying to offer civil explanations to hostile yet well-intentioned people, who see every comment or question as a personal attack.

I see they seem to have quietly exercised their right to disappear, following their block. A valid choice. However, in my experience, some people pretend to be exercising their right to disappear, but then covertly establish sockpuppets which they use to get even.

If I think STT is using sockpuppetry, for retaliation or general disruption, should I ask you for your opinion?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Geo Swan:. Hi Geo Swan. Thank you for the update. I skimmed through the discussion at Talk:Jack Letts, and I can see the same pattern of disruption I experienced with this account. During the discussion at Elgin Marbles I had not detected any IP socks used by this account, although after I saw your comments about IP socks at Talk:Jack Letts, I am going to double-check. I fully agree with you regarding the difficulty of dealing with this type of editor, although any username containing the word "truth" is always an indicator of problems to come. Thankfully, my report at 3RRN put an end to the disruption. Whenever you have any questions or comments about sock activity from this user, please feel free to contact me. I would be glad to help in any way I can. Cheers. Dr. K. 18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Star Trek Cats

Hey! Thanks for catching my mistake and fixing it. I noticed it only after the fact, but I'm glad you picked up on it!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 03:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a very cute subject, and I regret having to undo your edit, but perhaps you can add Spock's role in that movie. Best regards. Dr. K. 03:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Julius Streicher

Just FYI, you could have asked me to move the archive back to preserve the history of the talk page, and I most likely would have complied. There are two acceptable ways to make archives, one is to uses page moves, as I did in this case, and the other way is to cut-and-paste. They both have advantages and disadvantages, and I have used both. If someone in good standing, such as yourself, had a preference, I would have seen it as NBD - you didn't need to go to RM to get it done. If there is a next time, I hope you will consider that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely, BMK, now that you let me know. Thank you for your nice comments, which I reciprocate, since you are an editor I greatly respect. Fwiw, I did not ask you to undo it because I did not want to possibly annoy you with such a message. The reason I wanted to preserve the page history was that the talkpage had not been archived since 2004, so I thought it was best for the history to be kept at the original location. As far as taking it to RM, that was the place I thought was a most likely fit to reverse the move, although I was not happy with the "controversial move" section, which I chose out of convenience, although it did not really apply. Perhaps, I should have put it under "technical" moves. In any case, I did not mean this choice to reflect in any way as criticism of your action. Take care. Dr. K. 17:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It's all good, definitely no hard feelings on this side, just wanted to let you know. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Help

I don't mean to bother you Dr. K (thanks for welcoming me by the way), but I'm at my wit's end. Tell me, is it normal for editors to suppress good faith edits? If you have time, please take a look at this and let me know. Best. Neo-Brasidas (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deucalionite#13 March 2018. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ed. Take care. Dr. K. 22:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Stuff

Hello Dr. K. This is MaxGang. I see you have put something on the page that you welcomed me on. I would like to say thank you for welcoming me. I have had troubles with a person on Wikipedia. But now I hope it will be better this time. MaxGang (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Max. Thank you for the message. This time, I hope everything goes well for you on wiki. If you ever have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Take care. Dr. K. 17:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"Personal attacks"

After I recently stated on an edit that "I have added an infobox using information already present in this article before me. Please stop vandalising the page.", you reverted this with the note "stop the personal attacks."

Please do not make blatantly false accusations, as I have clearly not made any personal attack of any sort. I am sure you know this, but if you need any confirmation as to what constitutes a personal attack, you can check the information at WP:PA.

I am sure you can understand that nobody would like to be accused with doing something they clearly have not done. I would kindly ask you to refrain from doing this in the future.

Thank you --Junk2711 (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you omitted that, in my edit-summary, I told you to both AGF and stop the personal attacks. You did not mention that I also told you to assume good faith about the other editor. Let's say, that you don't understand the obvious fact that calling other good-faith editors vandals is a nasty personal attack. Let's say also, that you came here to lecture me about personal attacks, while you have no idea about what constitutes a personal attack. But are you telling me that calling editors in good standing vandals is not a failure of WP:AGF? Are you also telling me that you don't understand that casting aspersions that other editors are vandals is not a violation of the civility policy? In addition, you also misused the edit-summary field, because accusing good-faith editors of being vandals in edit-summaries, makes it very difficult for them to respond to you. See also Wikipedia:SUMMARYNO and WP:ESDONTS to understand where you went wrong. You also did all these things while you were engaged in an edit-war across two articles pushing some serious violations of NPOV. All these show serious problems with your attitude. If you really want to contribute here without problems, I advise you to seriously study all the points I make in my response to you. Dr. K. 16:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)