User talk:Dr.K./Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

User:Katechis303

Hello Dr.K. Back in December 2016 you added a sock notice at User talk:A. Katechis Mpourtoulis. In my opinion this banner should be removed, since there is no abuse under our policy. In the fall of 2016 it seems he was using Katechis303 on the English and Greek Wikipedias and also Commons. (Notice this file history on Commons, for a file he edited under both IDs). Since fall of 2016 there are no more Katechis303 edits. So this appears to be a simple change of username, though he didn't publicize it anywhere. Katechis303 seems not to be under any sanctions, though he did have at least one unfriendly interaction. Perhaps "Κανε μου μήνυση" is trying to say 'So sue me'? EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ed. This is a blast from the past. :) I had forgotten, I was the one who tagged this account as a sock. This guy, as Katechis, tended to be mildly disruptive. If I recall correctly, he used to edit-war some unsourced POV into Othonoi and other similar articles, and do some other unsavoury edits. I had left him a few warnings for these edits. Now I remember, when I saw him unofficially changing accounts, I tagged the new account since such arbitrary renames for accounts with previous problems don't bode well, and, also, I wanted to keep track of the new account just in case things got out of hand. Now I see the new account is at ANI. So things got a little out of hand. From the ANI report, I see that this editor has a tendency to push POV and also use IPs, so s/he has a mild case of sockpuppetry-like tendencies. IMO, there should be some notice that these two accounts are related for future reference. But I agree this is not an actionable sockpuppetry case. I also didn't know you understood Greek. Great translation on "Κανε μου μήνυση". :) That exchange with Kostas was a bit sarcastic. Dr. K. 18:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Why I gave responses

I imagine it is probably inconceivable to you why I bothered to gives responses here and here. Frankly, I probably should not have; it was most likely a waste of my precious time, but I did it anyways. The reason is because I feel it is my duty to provide at least some explanation for why a proposal is wrong, even if it is something as truly ridiculous as an assertion that Alexander the Great never really existed. My hope is that, by providing a response before simply closing the discussion as against some policy, I can perhaps make the person better understand why the discussion is wrong-headed. On a side note, I do not think that editor was just WP:SOAPBOXING because he or she did seem to have an intention to make actual changes to the articles - mind you, totally unwarranted and ridiculous changes, but changes nonetheless. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Kat, as a matter of policy, I never disagree with you. :) I respect you as a scholar, and I value your opinion. Although that type of POV is toxic, as well as hopeless, since you felt you had to reply, I am ok with your decision. Thank you for taking the time to reply and for your message to me here. Thank you also for reverting this POV. Take care. Dr. K. 05:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Transhumanist for the kind invitation, but since the time I created Portal:Byzantine Empire, I have retired from the portal business. However, not to the point to be indifferent to their fate. :) Thank you for your efforts to save them. Best regards. Dr. K. 00:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

ViamarisBalbi is back.

Hello! You may remember a few months ago when a user under the name of ViamarisBalbi (who had multiple sockpuppets) kept repeatedly insisting that Thales of Miletus and other Greek philosophers were actually Phoenician. Well, I think that user is back under a new name: SamMak. This user has picked up exactly where ViamarisBalbi left off, and has repeatedly changed that article to say that Thales was a Phoenician. (See these edits right here: [1], [2]). I thought I would let you know about this since you handled the matter last time. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring

There is edit warring going on - User:Sirlanz is for some reason going through all of my edits throughout Wikipedia and reverting all of them. Sirlanz is also reverting all of User:Kingston, CA's edits, and who knows how many more users.

At the moment I am undoing the damage Sirlanz is doing across Wikipedia, particularly to my edits. As I have that to focus on today, that is what I will focus on today - tomorrow or some time in the future I will revisit the Enver Hoxha page and look at it again.

Here is what he is reverting of mine as he goes through my edit history:

Removing my very dry, factual account of Christopher_Longuet-Higgins parent's names: [3]

Pulling out information on Facebook (Oculus) employee Michael Abrash's education: [4]

and this sort of thing. I personally don't think your reversion of the word "government" to "regime" is going from POV to NPOV, but at least that can be debated, your reversion is something within the realm of acceptable Wikipedia behavior. It is why we have a community around to act as arbiters if we can not come to a consensus.

Sirlanz is just going through the edit history of me, Kingston, and others, and reverting perfectly normal, factual edits, just to be spiteful and disruptive.

I will return to the Hoxha page tomorrow or at some time in the future. Right now I'm dealing with his wiki-wide disruption. Minimax Regret (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   23:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

@The Transhumanist: Hi TT. You are very welcome, and thank you for your kind comments. More than anyone that I noticed, you were a tireless champion of the Portals, and you deserve a lot of credit for the final outcome. What's more, your enthusiasm is commendable, and, in my opinion, the hallmark of a great Wikipedian. Sorry for the delay in replying, but I am currently on vacation and I only packed a small tablet for the trip, which makes it really hard to type anything these days. :) Take care. --Dr. K. 19:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop disruptive edits

(Bonadae20 (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC))

Thanks. Dr. K. 18:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

What's with the revert notice?

"Reverted to revision 843296802 by 45.124.56.134: RDO: Routine Desocking Operation. Blatant WP:BE/WP:SOCK Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Imanuel Granados. (TW★TW)"

I did not do anything that is disruptive, did I? Or you might have been mistaken? Please let me know. Thanks. hueman1 (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC) hueman1 (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@HueMan1: Please don't take it personally. I was just desocking (removing sock edits from) the article. I believe that you should be able to read article histories and also edit-summaries. If you read the article history, you would have seen that you had reverted someone else in that article history. Again, from the article history, it is apparent that my revert was deeper than yours, so I had to go to an earlier version than yours. That's why you got the notification that you got reverted. But that's only a false notification, because I did not revert you, as you may realise by now. I just had to go to an earlier version than yours to remove the edits of socks of Mark Imanuel Granados and noted that in my edit summary, which is clear on that matter. As an added bonus, I also linked, in my edit-summary, the SPI of Granados, so that there would be no misunderstanding about the purpose of my revert. I hope this helps. Dr. K. 17:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Thanks, I thought someone was thinking that am I sock puppeting. hueman1 (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Definitely not. It just happened that the socks made some edits just before your revert. Since you made a revert, and you didn't add anything new, it didn't matter that I reverted more to the last clean version before the sock's edits. But I also mentioned the sockmaster's name, and also the SPI, and provided a link to it in my edit summary to make sure there was no misunderstanding that I was reverting any good-faith editors. If you go to the SPI, you will see that the socks were blocked by a CU. Obviously, your name never came up in that investigation. Dr. K. 16:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Spanish language

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

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

A Corfiot

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

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

3RRNB

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

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

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

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

Question about your DS alert

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

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

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

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

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

Έλληνες στη πγδμ

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A. Katechis Mpourtoulis‎

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

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

Komnenos

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

A beer for you!

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Greece

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

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

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

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

Air France Flight 447

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

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

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

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

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

Oops

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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