User talk:Dr.K.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Bot Messages and Image Problems Archive

DYK

On 7 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Sellers (actor), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 02:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Royal to you and the DYK crew that made this possible. Take care. Dr.K. 02:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Aerospace

Hi - I believe that it derived from Mechanical Engineering so Historically it arose from bicycle mechanics - see Specialized subdisciplines of Mechanical Engineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HAL3000 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sure that Aeronautical has a strong mechanical component in it. But I quote from the History section of Engineering: Its origins can be traced back to the aviation pioneers around the turn of the century from the 19th century to the 20th although the work of Sir George Cayley has recently been dated as being from the last decade of the 18th century. Early knowledge of aeronautical engineering was largely empirical with some concepts and skills imported from other branches of engineering. Modern Mechanical arose from the Steam engines and their application to industry that led to the Industrial Revolution. Aeronautical borrowed from Mechanical but it also borrowed from Physics, Fluid Dynamics, Textile Engineering which is related to Chemical etc. and it evolved historically as a separate branch in parallel to Mechanical. That is why it is considered as a separate Branch. See it this way: It did not wait for Mechanical to mature and then to later grow out of Mechanical. Computer Engineering, for example, grew out of Electrical and developed later. Aeronautical grew in parallel to Mechanical. Dr.K. 22:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - to quote MIT's website: http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/about/history.html The aeronautics study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began six years prior to the Wright brothers' 1903 pioneering flight. In 1896, mechanical engineering student Albert J. Wells built a 30-square-inch wind tunnel as part of his thesis.

You could say that DiVinci is the father of aerospace engineering and that it stemmed from biology or that Daedalus is the father and that it stemmed from prison escape...

If you go to the link in reference 14 U of E, they only mention the others and not aerospace so that's contradictory.

At the Imperial College of London - if you look at their department it states: Aeronautics was first taught at Imperial College in 1909, with the first chair established in 1919. We are now recognised as a leading department internationally, with over 300 undergraduates on our four-year MEng degree, approximately 40 postgraduate students on our two MSc courses and over 70 research students and research associates.

It looks like they only give a Meng degree.

Also Mechanical Engineering is concerned with anything that moves. Civil with statics. Chemical(a branch of Mechanical). If you asked me there would be two - Civil(Mechanical a branch of Civil), and Electrical

So - where does this leave us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HAL3000 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You can classify them any way you want and that's the problem. So the classification has to come not from you or me but from History and from practice. DaVinci and Daidalos etc are too early to even be considered. Mechanical, in its modern form, according to Britannica started with the steam engines etc. not with Archimedes. You either accept this chronology or we have to go back all the way to the Neanderthal man and see what kind Engineering branches they had. It is generally accepted that Engineering has the five branches mentioned if you accept the chronology from the 17th century onwards. There is neither a strict definition nor a theorem that can yield the five branches. But Academically and historically these are the recognised five main branches of Engineering. That Edinburgh does not offer one of them (Aerospace) is not proof it does not exist. Engineers know that. Now if you want to be philosophical about it and try to either expand them or shrink their number by shifting criteria or finding new commections between the branches you can of course do that too. It would be very time consuming and counterproductive for us to engage in such discussion though because it would be like playing with dough. Engineering as a subject is malleable enough to take many shapes. Everyone using their own criteria can come up with different branches. Either we stick to History, academic tradition and widely accepted practice or we might as well go to the beach and start playing with wet sand. Dr.K. (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Βικιπαίδεια

Hi Dr.K. I just copied the article Korkyra (which you started) to el:Κόρκυρα (with the necessary link to all previous editors and I have just moved its editing history too). I think that it would be a good idea to have in Βικιπαίδεια the articles you started here. My time is limited, this is why I chose a really small article of yours to demonstrate this in practice and not just canvass you. I understand that your time is also limited, but nevertheless, I thought, why not, one more sort-of-canvassing note. He can survive that one too :) .--FocalPoint (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really honoured FocalPoint. Far from being canvassing your message is very welcome news and your strategy very logical. I am intrigued and I will try to help especially with larger articles in the future. But I'm also impressed with your technical skill. I didn't know you could transfer the history of an article interwiki. How did you manage that? I always thought it was well nigh impossible. And to go to such lengths to credit the original contributors even though you did all the translation exceeds the standards of academic integrity. Let me know if you need any help in the future. Thanks again and εις το επανιδείν. Τάσος. (Dr.K. (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Since this action involves deleting, it is reserved to administrators (I am one in Βικιπαίδεια), however, you can ask for this in el:Βικιπαίδεια:Αιτήσεις εισαγωγής ιστορικού. We always respond, since as you point out, this gives credit to the right people. Many editors in Βικιπαίδεια are quite careful about our (wikipedians') copyrights. Χάρηκα για τη γνωριμία Τάσο, --FocalPoint (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I was suspecting something like that. I didn't think mere users could transfer history like that. It was very kind of you to do so. Anyway I have occasionally edited Βικιπαίδεια as Τάσος Κ so I'll use the account for any future work there. Ευχαριστώ και πάλι και η ευχαρίστηση είναι αμοιβαία. Τάσος. (Dr.K. (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Robertwilson.gif

I have tagged Image:Robertwilson.gif as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be a meanie about images, and thank for understanding. By the way, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! We have plenty of enthusiastic nonspecialists here, but it's always great to have true scholars willing to help out. You're fluent in Koine Greek? I don't suppose Biblical criticism is your cup of tea, is it? I'm reading John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew, and it's fascinating, but certainly I would get more out of it if I knew Koine (or Aramaic, or both). Your contribution list looks to focus on other areas, however. In less scholarly matters, I appreciate the article on Brian Kilcommons; his "Good Owners, Great Dogs" was very instrumental in helping my relationship with my Chow-mix, although I found his "Good Owners, Great Cats" to be a bit less useful. (Cats are much less burdened with the instinctual desire to please that characterizes dogs.) All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. First let me thank you for your very kind comments. Coming from a fellow academic, it is a great honour indeed. I have seen your work from time to time and I consider you to be very fair, articulate and dilligent. As far as meanie, not by a long shot. There used to be a time when I got somehow excited about picture deletion but when I realised the ritual aspect of it I just don't get nearly as excited now, especially if they are fair and originating from competent admins such as yourself. However the rest of your comments present a very difficult problem for me. The reason for this difficulty is that I don't know where to start my reply from. So I'll start it from my most favourite part. That of the Brian Kilcommons article. Even then it is difficult to reply since there are so many levels to it. It just shows how rewarding and unexpected writing in Wikipedia can be, not to mention fun on many different levels. So to make a long story short I would never have dreamt of writing about Brian Kilcommons had I not been involved in trying to rescue the Bassetdor article, an article so improbable as its subject matter and one that I just happened upon by chance. Brian Kilcommons was the only reliable source for the article. I then found out that Brian Kilcommons was helped by his pet Irish mutt and I was inspired to write the article. To have a fellow Wikipedian give me such great feedback about its usefulness on pet upbringing is simply as close as you get to being paid in real money for your work here. The additional comments about cats are priceless. Thank you for that. As far as Biblical criticism, as you very aptly put it, is not a cup of my favourite beverage (tea). But my knowledge of Koine is based on an interpolation between Ancient and Modern Greek, since I never formally studied it. If I can be of any help I'll try my best. Anyway if I made this reply any longer it would unnecessarily keep you from your considerable duties here, so I will close by thanking you once more for your great (and enjoyable) feedback. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

http://tools.wikimedia.de is down

The whole of http://tools.wikimedia.de appears to be down currently. This affects many things. One of them is mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#What's with geonotice.py?. I don't know what caused it or when it might be fixed. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's back. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Burt Lancaster in Lawman.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Burt Lancaster in Lawman.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you removed 2 fair use images from the article. You shouldn't have removed them and you should add them back immediately. The DYK rules don't state that you should remove the fair use images from the article. What the rule say is that the image that we use on the main page won't be a fair use image. I hope this comment helps clear up the rules. Your article looks good and it should be featured. Royalbroil 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. But what will be the replacement pics? Dr.K. (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. thanks for the clarification. Dr.K. (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you did not cite anything in the article Lawman (film) that you nominated for DYK. It cannot be featured with citations. There at minimum has to be a citation for the fact used in the DYK hook. Please fix this as soon as possible so it has a chance of being featured in DYK. You don't necessarily need to use fancy templates. You can find out more at Wikipedia:CITE#How_to_cite_sources. Here's a simple example that I did today if you find that easier: Jimmie Lewallen. Good luck. Royalbroil 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Done as we speak. Dr.K. (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your great help. Dr.K. (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawman

Hi there Tasoskessaris. Don't get me wrong, I thought your article was very well written and quite interesting. I just couldn't find where you'd got the following summary from:

Its main characteristic is that the hero appears flawed and the motives and purpose of the other characters are not as defined or clear-cut as in other westerns such as the Good the Bad and the Ugly and even earlier American ones that preceded it. The suspects' crime is not as heinous as in other westerns and their credentials as villains not as certain. Even the town's strongman Vincent Bronson, played by Lee J. Cobb, is portrayed as an eager negotiator trying to avoid bloodshed at every turn. Despite all these factors the marshal and the guilty men come to a series of deadly confrontations that claim many lives. The lawman is portrayed, as the plot progresses, as having increasing doubts about his mission and being disillusioned about his job.

I just couldn't find much in the sources to support this description. So while I think it's probably passable as an article, I'm inclined to think that articles nominated for DYK probably need to stick a little closer to their sources. If you can point me to a source that makes the above points however, I'd be happy to reconsider. Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I read right through the TCM summary carefully and again, I just didn't find anything to support the summary of the film you wrote above. The hook is there, sure, but I think articles that are submitted for DYK have to conform to minimum Wiki standards, such as WP:OR. Basically the above summary seems to be your own opinion of the film, and while your opinion may well be accurate, the encyclopedia can't be based on the personal opinions of Wiki editors. Gatoclass (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would be fine without the summary. Gatoclass (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine now, I'll add a message to the Suggestions page to say I've changed my mind, if someone else doesn't include it in an update I will add it to the next update I do (sometime tomorrow). Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 25 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lawman (film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

You're welcome for the help. I'm glad it worked out. --Royalbroil 05:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Andreas Papandreou.jpg

It was a photo (not a newspaper page) uploaded with a {{Non-free newspaper image}} licence - deleted per WP:CSD I#7 - Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a logo tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time. I restored it, You are welcome to fix the licence before 3 January 2008. P.S. This page is 150 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. Best, feydey (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest reading {{Non-free newspaper image}} licensing text very well before using it. It is not to be used on photographs, even if they are scanned from newspapers. feydey (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the fair use rationale on that image, just the license. feydey (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will have to check it up as soon as I return. Unfortunately I have to go now. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Rolex rhyme with bolox?

(Sorry Doc, couldn't resist. It's not even original: years ago, "Bolox" watches were advertised in the back of Private Eye: "Your friends will love it when you say 'Excuse me while I check my Bolox.'" Or similar.)

Could you have another look at Talk:Rolex if you have a few minutes? Thanks. Of course, feel very free to disagree with me there. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hoary. Thanks for the joke and the invitation. Nice way of demystifying the brand. Anyway I'll check the talk page as soon as I finish a Solid Mechanics discussion in the Straight razor talk page. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. More to the point, I'm taking myself off the net for a couple of days. (I'm sure en:WP can tick along without me.) Back by 3 January. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You reminded me of the Timex ad. Indeed WP and even Rolex will keep on ticking. Have a nice break. Dr.K. (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Smena

If you wish to use it, please put the Smena 6 picture on the Lomography article, which discusses Smena cameras more broadly. The Smena 8M article is about the Smena 8M camera; if you wish to expand it to cover all Smenas so you can use the Smena 6 picture, you can, but then the article must move to Smena. eae (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

D-U-N done. eae (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have bothered making the disambig page. The camera is by far the most famous Smena, and none of the other Smenas have articles, so the disambig page really doesn't help anyone find anything new. I don't see any harm in it, but not much use either. eae (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Prisoner

"The Prisoner also inspired the naming of the band thenewno2, featuring George Harrison's son, Dhani Harrison." I followed the links. Nowhere did I see authority for this proposition, therefore, as an uncited allegation, it remains deleted until it can be supported by evidence, and as an editor wishing to include it, the onus remains on you to provide authority. I've no doubt that it may be true; but policy requires that it be substantiated. Over to you. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll tag it but that will only delay its removal if it continues to remain unreferenced. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reference, but it only needs a link to the website here rather than a lengthy recitation amounting to original research. Do you mind if I change it or do you want to? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns here, but all we need to do is satisfy verifiability and reliable sources. If readers don't believe the statement, that's what the link is there to support. I'll shorten it if you don't mind. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sophie Scholl's last words

Hi, I commented out the footnote to the film and added a fact tag to the article: The movie is a fictionalization and therefore not a very good reference. Do you have a better reference? (John User:Jwy talk) 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

An older version of the article had it as "possible last words" and referred to the movie. If we can't find a source, we can go back to that. Thanks. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 02:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Link ?

Hello

Why is it, You say that it is OK to place a link on a wiki page but soon as you do its deleted ? Please can you tell me why mine keeps being deleting and what I need to do to keep the link I place ? I will gladly add a return link on my front page, do you have a 88x31 button banner that I can add to my front page for a return link?

This is my web site http://www.holidaycorfu.org for you to review. I made my web site as a hobby and for the love of the Island of Corfu. There is NO commercial interest to do with my site, and all site expenses come out of my pocket!! Please feel free to browse its content to verify that it is more then suitable to be displayed within Wikipedia.

Best Regards

Alan. admin@holidaycorfu.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al69 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Invite to WP:ROBO

NASA Spirit Rover Model

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the invitation. Accepted. --Dr.K. (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To add yourself as a participant of WP:ROBO, please add yourself to the alphabetized list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics/Participants. Thanks! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please use {{subst}} when inviting users to WP:ROBO. for future reference, type in {{subst:Invite User WikiProject Robotics}}. Let me know if you have any further questions. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I have a question as I do not fully understand your position:

• Do you object to Kings and Presidents being merged in one List of heads of state of Greece (or merely to them being merged under the List of Kings of Greece article which never was my intention? *Or do you insist on a List of Kings and Presidents of Greece?

Str1977 ^(talk) 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please reply, Dr K? Str1977 ^(talk) 20:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Str, but I already did here, (yesterday). Dr.K. (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Greek oldest living language?

I was looking for some examples and I inadvertently stumbled on the notion that calling Greek the oldest living language might be misleading for that even though it has been "alive" for so long modern Greek is incompatible with its Ancient iterations. Although I suppose that its a continuous relationship; maybe that isn't something to worry over. However if you choose to go by that logic you would be ignoring the similar journey underwent by Chinese. Oracle bone inscriptions acknowledged by a section of this very site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_Chinese) date Chinese back to at least the 14th century, there is no dispute of that within the historical community, that I'm aware of.

Thanks,

Grenadesalad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.124.198 (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points. Linguistically speaking, I am not sure if the statement that modern Greek is incompatible with ancient Greek is true. There are significant similarities between the two. The natural evolution of ancient into modern Greek and language continuity is however apparent even to the casual observer I think. As far as Chinese, I am even less of an expert, therefore I cannot express an opinion on its continuity much less compare it to its Greek counterpart. I am aware however that this is an ancient civilisation with a great and lengthy history. Therefore I can easily imagine it could lay a claim as one of the oldest languages. Comparative linguistics can give us the answer if Greek or Chinese holds that title. It wouldn't hurt if you brought this up on either language's article talk page. Thanks for the enquiry and take care. Dr.K. (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for kibitzing, but I think this is much too simple. When we try to look at the languages written two thousand years ago (for example), we have few among which to choose: most societies were illiterate, and we can only attempt to reconstruct their languages; we can't see them (let alone hear them). Now, we could talk of proto-Greek, proto-Chinese and proto-Italian. However, we don't: we talk of classical (?) Greek, ancient Chinese, and classical (?) Latin. The difference in nomenclature (the fact that there's no 2000-year-old Italian) has something to do with how each of these languages has diversified since; it doesn't tell us that Italian is more different from Latin than modern Greek is different from classical Greek. Yet the nomenclature by itself manages to give this impression. (The impression may accord with the facts, but that would be by the way.) You might start by looking at relative intelligibility: How old can Greek be and yet be understandable for a monolingual speaker of modern Greek? But this too is full of traps. What do you mean by understandable? What kind of speaker? To what extent does the modern written language retain features of the ancient written language that would be impossibly archaic if spoken, and thus perhaps artificially keep the old written language comprehensible. Et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, something must have happened to Latin and somehow everyone thinks it's a dead language. I did not invent this idea. Conversely everyone seems to think Greek is a living language. We can invent any number of ideas to argue against these points. But I suspect, after some research, at the end of the day we would reach the same conclusions as above. I would hate to reinvent the wheel so I won't. Dr.K. (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr Kessaris I just dropped by to thank you for your kind words, all the more welcome for coming from a fellow engineer and IEEE member. Take care sir.

Hoary, the surprising similarities between the Greek spoken today and that of two thousand years ago, the Koine (an evolution of Attic) is due to the fact that the Koine was the language of the Gospels and hence accesible to all Greeks every week at Church. This has resulted in a modern speaker being able to understand fairly well, though not reproduce, utterances in a two thousand year old language. Additionaly the diglossia, use of a formal language (Attic) for official and scholarly written works until the 18th century has also led to smaller linguistic drift than the time intervals involved would suggest. Hope that helps. Xenovatis (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Xenovatis for your kind words, but that was the least I could do given your remarkable effort in collecting these academic sources which shed even more light on such a difficult, tragic and sometimes ignored historical topic that nevertheless is of paramount importance to humanity. Because only by studying, analyzing and classifying inhumanities and crimes against humanity we can more properly define what is humanity. I am also pleased to see another fellow engineer and IEEE member, especially on my talk page. Thank you as well for the details you provided about the Greek language. It's a fascinating subject and I didn't know the very interesting evolutionary details that you provided. Take care for now. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

WP:ROBO

OK... so I've began to assess the robotics articles. Please review the article assessment guidelines and help this WikiProject out by helping out with the following:

• Adding Robotics-related articles to the WikiProject
• Assessing robotics articles listed in Category:Robotics articles by quality
• Helping out with giving comments to individual articles after assessment, pointers, comments, etc. (basically, don't just give an article class and move on, let people know what led you to give such a rating when necessary.

We need to get this article assessment drive going first before peer reviews and collaborations programs can be made.

Note: advertising for this WikiProject:

Static Banner

If you want to use it for our WikiProject advertisement, simple paste [[Image:Wikiprojectrobotics.png]] to use this static banner.

Animated Banner

Our ad is now in the Wikipedia Ads circulation. Help promote WikiProject Robotics by displaying this image on your userpage, or to place Wikipedia Ads to your user page, you may add {{Wikipedia ads}}.

• Display only certain ads: Here's the script to only display certain ads (so you can have people see our Robotics ad more often (or just only display this ad only). Note: WikiProject:Robotics Ad is #116.

{{Wikipedia ads|ad={{#switch:{{#expr:{{NUMBEROFEDITS:R}} mod 12}} <!-- mod 12 is the number of ads total-->
|0=24  <!--Change the the ad number of your choice here.  Remember, -->
|1=45  <!--this is an array, so the count starts with 0, and ends   -->
|2=73  <!--with one number lower than the total number of ads.  :-) -->
|3=77 |4=86 |5=94 |6=104 |7=106 |8=116 |9=116 |10=116 |11=116}}}}

Please let me know if you have any questions. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I will. It really looks great. Dr.K. (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your message to me

Hi,

I wonder why you termed my addition of a link to the Grey Gardens Online website as "vandalism." Can you please explain?

Thank you for your time and feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GGcats (talk • contribs) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Putting identical external links to a multitude of articles without edit summaries is considered spamming. Another editor also suggested you change the mode of contributing to Wikipedia on your talk page because it only involved pasting one single identical link to a variety of articles without proper explanation. Spamming is a serious breach of Wikipedia policies. Dr.K. (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reaction, however, asking in a civilised way to explain the reason of my action, clearly does not fit the profile of a vandal. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings but in the future please provide more detailed edit summaries and avoid blanketing multiple articles with the same link. --Dr.K. (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Greek ancestry

Hi, I saw your "undo". Do you think you could point me to the relevant discussion please, I didn't know this issue had been raised before.Dolavon (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, How about this for starters. I'm sure more exist in the archives. Dr.K. (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And this, where even DNA is discussed. Dr.K. (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And of course we have another winner (whiner?) here. Dr.K. (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You had given me the impression though that the Columbia Encyclopedia ref had been discussed as well and for some reason it had been agreed to leave it out, which is why you undid me. According to the relevant article, the CE is "highly regarded", so I figured it would be the easiest way to represent the current ("un-Fallmerayic") academic view on the issue without getting into the complexity of genetics.Dolavon (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No. I did not mean the Columbia article. I meant genetics of the Greeks in general. But the edit summary field as you understand is not large enough to include such disclaimers. There are additional discussions on DNA, including research papers on Greek genetics, far more detailed than your Columbia Encyclopaedia source but I can't locate them right now. I'm sure an administrator might help retrieve them if you need to pursue this further. Dr.K. (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

apologies

Sorry -- I didn't mean to be an insult-thrower. For the record, I am not super-rich, and I am currently wearing a Rolex (SS DJ that my wife bought me for my birthday). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chromatic Fugue (talk • contribs) 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. I have a Submariner and I am also not super rich. Thanks for the gesture. No problem. It happens in the heat of the moment. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mavronjoti

Let me just get this clarified, once and for all, categorically: User:Mavronjoti was not sockpuppeting. If you still think he was, you need to take a quiet half hour off and study WP:SOCK and the nature of dynamic IP assignment, of which you seem to have a somewhat shaky understanding. I very strongly recommend you drop this point, because it crosses the line into harassment.

I'm all for having a critical review of whatever strange claims it is this user is proposing, and if necessary giving him a clear message how seriously we take WP:V, but let's keep it clean, WP:AGF, matter-of-fact, and focussed on the content not on the contributor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying to evade violating the 3RR rule by hiding behind 3 IPs if it is not sockpuppetry it is devious editing practices. Accusing me of harassment for pointing these devious practices based on nuances and semantics after you accused me of racism is in itself harassment. Dr.K. (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't hiding anything. He wasn't trying to evade anything. Sockpuppetry entails intent of deception, which was clearly not the case. He had three different IPs one after the other because his ISP re-assigns them daily, as with most of us. Routine case, I deal with these every day. He violated 3RR, it was plain for all to see, exactly because he was not hiding it. He got blocked for it, rightly so. Where's the problem? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Striking one part of the above. Apparently, it's not daily fresh IPs from a large DSL pool, more like a small pool of recurrent IPs. Looks more like a limited group of computers like in a school lab or library or internet cafe. Anyway, it still doesn't make much of a difference. IP editing is not forbidden. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why can't this user behave like any other good faith user? A good faith user 99% of the time logs in and then presto! he goes about his legitimate business. Ok. let's say he doesn't understand the system. But then he quotes bogus people for sources and tries to undo centuries of bona fide research to prove that Kapodistrias was born in Albania. Then he reverts people using the anonymous IPs and not his user name. Now this to me looks like a pattern. A pattern of deception. To understand that Mavronjoti is hiding behind these IPs you have to do some research. It is not apparent to the casual observer who thinks there are three users disagreeing and reverting and that gives him more clout among the uninitiated to such trickery. But enough of that. I do not wish to pursue this dialogue any further especially since I think it is basically useless to discuss this with someone so partial to Mavronjoti. Yes I know you will try to refute this. That's fine. Point taken. Don't bother to reply. Sometimes in a conflict such as this the best way out is just to close shop and go home. I never expected such behaviour from an admin, especially since I knew you and I thought you were impartial but at the end of the day one realises that worse things have happened. I'm sure life will go on. Dr.K. (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello there

Hey where is Arben Llalla’s, page because I can not find it? The only things that he writes on Albanian message boards, are for Kosovo or Macedonia, din’t see any Albanians-Greek ethnic issues.The Greek historian Panagiotis Aravantinos, Greek Encyclopedia, Vol V, page 402, and Trifon Evangelidi on his book “The history of Joanis Kapodistrias”, also the Greek newspapers “NEA EFHMERIDHA” of 10 and 12 May 1887 are and should be reliable sources though.

As Taulant, never heard of Ioannis Kapodistrias to be Albanian? I am so confused. --Taulant23 (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Taulant. Thank you for you enquiry, but I am afraid I am not an expert on obscure sources. In 1887 newspapers could publish anything. The reporter obviously was confused because there was no Internet then and Kapodistrias was not exactly broadcasting his origins on the nearest blog. As far as Greek Encyclopedia I never heard of such. However if you go to the Kapodistrias article you will see about 8 citations from verifiable online sources with great credentials such as books and scientific papers which clearly state that not only Kapodistrias was born in Corfu, his whole family was there since 1383 or so. This is 400 years before he was born. You then ask yourself: If the (unknown) Greek encyclopedia wrote about Kapodistrias as born in Albania how come all other International scholars never read this encyclopedia to correct themselves. They must have been pretty negligent scholars. Or they may have simply dismissed the idea as completely false. You decide what is the most probable scenario. Take care and mirupafshim. Dr.K. (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning over unaccetable behaviour

You have no right whatsoever to remove the comments of other users from talk pages. This is the only warning you will receive. JdeJ (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it was a mistake

I guess you wanted to restore the previous message that I erroneously edited out when making my comment. That's perfectly fine and thanks for that, but the best approach would have been to insert that comment again as well as leaving my comment in after it. I've edited the page in that way. JdeJ (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. As far as best approach, given the limited time I had at that precise moment, I restored the page to its original condition just before you edited it and I figured we would split the labour, as it actually happened. Dr.K. (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

einstein article

Thanks for fixing the article - I couldn't figure how to get it back to your original form. PhySusie (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I had the same problem. But I reverted further back to a version by me. Thank you for the feedback. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferret

I'd like to thank you for your rational discussion on the ferret's genetic ancestry.

The history behind the present trinomial is quite interesting, but I won't bore you with it now. I just wanted to say that it's refreshing to be able to discuss such a disagreement without it degenerating into handbags at dawn. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I would like to thank you for the enlightening discussion we had. It is obvious that your knowledge of this subject is superior to mine and I also thank you for your patience and excellent discussion manners. I am really curious to understand the background of the trinomial versus the binomial naming so if you ever have the time feel free to drop me a note. And the handbags at dawn, those, unfortunately, sometimes happen but never with knowledgeable, reasonable and patient editors such as yourself. Thanks again and take care. Dr.K. (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Evangelos Averoff

Who sounds good to me instead of what. I just kept reading that sentance and knew something wasn't right.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. However I now took the whole sentence out because it was part of an uncited section with unsupported details. Dr.K. (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection. I know nothing about the subject. Just cruising around with the random page button. If it doesn't belong, just glad you noticed.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making me notice. It was because of your edit that I paid attention to the article. I put the original tags in November but noone came with specific page numbers and references to the points they were trying to make. Thanks again and take care. Dr.K. (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Giorgos

Thanks for the welcome. I am now reading the wikipedia basics and already starting to get a headache. I 'll probably end up asking you for clarifications sooner or later. Hopefully it won't take long... and btw I think I already have a question: I 'm not an English native speaker, so could I write in Greek when asking you for clarifications? Is it considered impolite or something?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Giorgo. Thanks for your message. It's a great pleasure to be able to help you in any way I can. Asking me for clarifications in Greek, far from being impolite, is actually fun. I can always answer you in Greek and i wouldn't mind the practice. Your level of English is great anyway. Your comments on the talk page of the article on Greeks attests to that and it is obvious you have a great understanding of the subject. Take care for now και εις το επανιδείν. Τάσος (Dr.K. (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Is it just me or did I mess up something in this page???--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you indent messages like we do in a letter creates the white box with the broken lines. Always write as far left as possible. That was one of the problems for me as well when I started here. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

DYK

On 7 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kapodistrias Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Dark ^(talk) 10:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: My talk archive deleted

It's still there, but at User talk:Tasoskessaris/archive 2; you'd originally created it as an article-space archive rather than a user one. Hope that helps! Kirill 03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Kirill. I replied on your talk page. Dr.K. (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pontic Greek Genocide

My apologies if I intruded into a personal conversation. It appeared, to me, that Philip was being obtuse. Kansas Bear (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It would appear, to me, that Philip has decided to remain vague in his assertions to the changes he believes needed to be applied to the title. He states cases(Brazil, Germany) then completely ignores my insistance on equality in contrast to the Holocaust(in which you find no statements by David Irving nor any other Holocaust deniers). His stance on NPOV appears to be one-sided, if not nationalistically(Turkey) motivated. Unless he provides any quality sources for his assertions(NPOV), he simply needs to accept the facts presented and move on. I've yet to see such concern for the Holocaust page, and subsequent dispute over its neutrality. Kansas Bear (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review feedback

Hi, I noticed you have a request in at peer review which has not yet received any response besides the semi-automated script. Have you tried requesting a peer review from the volunteers list? Another idea is to review someone else's request (particularly one from the list of requests without responses), then ask that they look at your request. Hope these are helpful suggestions and help to get some feedback for your request soon, APR _t 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

First let me thank you for caring enough to drop by. It means a lot to me to see people care. It is very nice of you and it encourages me to continue with this. Also thank you for your advice. The idea to review another article and then ask for a review in return is simple and seems straightforward. The only problem is, even though I find it quintessentially Wikipedian and amusing, I can't really bring myself to actually do it for fear of being thought of as trying to coerce someone in a quid pro quo type of exchange. But you're right, I should try it. Why not. The worst thing that can happen is if I review an article and don't get a review in return. By the way you are invited to review it in any way you see fit. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand not wanting to coerce someone - if you don't want to do the quid pro quo, you can always just ask for a volunteer from the list to review it. If no one else reviews it in the next few days, I will be glad to Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (I run the AZPR script too)

Thank you Ruhrfisch. I really appreciate your kind offer. I'll try it. But no matter the outcome I'd be very glad if you gave your opinion anyway. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to get all the peer reviews that are about 14 days old and have no feedback something, so I will take a look at Hendrik Bode in a few days at most (even if it gets a review too). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks again. Talk to you soon. Dr.K. (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try to review Bode's article but still have more to do on the review of Crawley first, it may take a few days...JMiall₰ 01:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gunther von Hagens Secret Lab

Hi Taso - you're right, it really is behind a moving staircase - just assumed that was someone making a joke. Loved the clip - really interesting - so added it to the Body Worlds Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigriscuniculus (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know it sounds weird. Imagine my surprise when I saw the staircase move for the first time just as the narrator mentioned the secret lab. I actually put the citation clip in the article more as reply to a talk page question. I'm glad you liked it and that you put it in the Body Worlds Wiki. I'll visit the site to see what you have there. Thank you for following up. By the way I am impressed that you used the correct declension of my name. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ερώτηση για τις τεκμηριώσεις

Αν και έχει περάσει αρκετός καιρός, από την τελευταία φορά που σ' ενόχλησα, οφείλω να σε ευχαριστήσω έστω και καθυστερημένα για τα καλά σου λόγια και την εγκάρδια διάθεση. Η απορία μου αυτή τη φορά είναι η εξής: Υπάρχει κάποια προτίμηση σε πηγές που είναι διαθέσιμες στο διαδίκτυο ή μπορώ να παραθέτω τα βιβλιογραφικά στοιχεία (συγγραφέα, τίτλο, σελίδα κοκ) σύμφωνα με την έντυπη τους μορφή; Είμαι συνδρομητής σε διάφορα επιστημονικά περιοδικά μέσω του JSTOR, στα οποία όμως η πρόσβαση επιτρέπεται αποκλειστικά στους συνδρομητές. Σε αυτή την περίπτωση, τι είναι προτιμότερο; Να επισυνάπτω στην τεκμηρίωση την ηλεκτρονική διεύθυνση στην οποία δεν θα έχουν όλοι πρόσβαση ή να παραθέτω την βιβλιογραφική παραπομπή χωρίς τη σχετική σύνδεση; Παρεμπιπτόντως, οφείλω να ομολογήσω ότι εκτιμώ ιδιαίτερα όσους υπογράφουν με το όνομά τους. Αν και δεν είμαι σίγουρος αν αυτός είναι ο κατάλληλος χώρος, θα ήθελα να μάθω αν έχει συζητηθεί η σκοπιμότητα της ανωνυμίας στην Wikipedia. Μου φαίνεται περίεργο στο πλαίσιο ενός προγράμματος που επιδιώκει τη διάδοση της γνώσης. Τι είναι πιο ευγενικό από αυτό και γιατί να κρυβόμαστε;--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Δεν υπαρχει καμμία ενόχληση Γιώργο. Είναι ευχαρίστησή μου. Επίσης σ' ευχαριστώ για τα καλά σου λόγια. 'Οσο για τις πηγές είναι απολύτως εντάξει να είναι σε τύπο βιβλιογραφικής παραπομπής χωρίς τη σχετική σύνδεση. Το JSTOR το έχω χρησιμοποιήσει κι' εγώ σε αρκετά άρθρα. Δεν είμαι συνδρομητής αλλά υπάρχουν περιληπτικές λεπτομέρειες online από το JSTOR για αρκετές ερευνητικές μελέτες. Έτσι αν μπορείς να βρείς μία σύνδεση του JSTOR online που δίνει την περίληψη της παραπομπής την επισυνάπτεις γιατί αποτελεί άμεση απόδειξη της παραπομπής. Αν δεν υπάρχει τότε απλώς παραθέτεις την βιβλιογραφική περιγραφή χωρίς σύνδεση. Μπορείς να κοιτάξεις το άρθρο του Ioannis Kapodistrias όπου θα δεις παραδείγματα σύνδεσης του JSTOR online σε περιληπτική μορφή και άνευ συνδρομής. Όσο για την ανωνυμία το θέμα είναι ότι σαν συγγραφείς εδώ βασιζόμαστε στις αποδείξεις των στοιχείων που χρησιμοποιούμε, όχι στο όνομά μας. Έτσι, ευτυχώς η δυστυχώς το όνομα δεν είναι μία συνθήκη sine qua non. Γι' αυτό, μη κοιτάς εμένα η εσένα, πολλοί προτιμούν την ανωνυμία. Υπάρχουν δε και θέματα ασφαλείας και ιδιωτικής προστασίας πληροφοριών και τυχόν υποκλοπής στοιχείων προσωπικότητας του ατόμου που κάνουν πολλούς διστακτικούς να αποκαλύψουν λεπτομέρειες για το άτομό τους. Το θέμα είναι αν τα στοιχεία που προσφέρεις σε ένα άρθρο είναι εμπεριστατωμένα τότε δεν χρειάζεσαι το όνομα. Τα στοιχεία μιλούν από μόνα τους. Το περιβάλλον εδώ γι' αυτό το λόγο είναι στοιχειοκρατικό όχι προσωποκρατικό. Εν πάσει περιπτώσει οι προσφορές κάθε συγγραφέα είναι ορατές ούτως η άλλως, έτσι κάποια προβολή γίνεται σε κάποιον που έχει συνεισφέρει κάτι αξιόλογο. Αν αυτή η προβολή είναι επιθυμητή η όχι εξαρτάται από τις ατομικές συνθήκες του καθενός. Ήταν ευχαρίστηση αυτή επικοινωνία Γιώργο και εις το επανιδείν. Dr.K. (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Σ' ευχαριστώ και πάλι για τις άκρως διαφωτιστικές πληροφορίες σχετικά με την βιβλιογραφική τεκμηρίωση. Διάβασα προσεκτικά τις υπόλοιπες παρατηρήσεις σου και οφείλω να ομολογήσω ότι συμμερίζομαι τις ανησυχίες περί ασφάλειας και προσωπικών δεδομένων. Παρακολουθώντας, ωστόσο, πόσο βιτριολική μπορεί να γίνει η κατάσταση στις σελίδες συζήτησης, δεν μπορώ να μην αναρωτηθώ κατά πόσον το κλίμα θα ήταν το ίδιο αν ο καθένας είχε την παρρησία να συστηθεί (θα ήταν τουλάχιστον επίδειξη κομψότητας). Εννοείται ότι αυτό που μετράει είναι η εμπεριστατωμένη τεκμηρίωση και ότι δεν τίθεται ζήτημα προσωπικής προβολής (πολύ αμφίβολης άλλωστε εν προκειμένω. Μπορεί πάλι να κάνω και λάθος... Είδα ότι έχεις κάποια ιδιαίτερη σχέση με Κέρκυρα όπου κάποτε σπούδαζα. Θα σε αποχαιρετήσω λοιπόν καταλλήλως. Λοιπόν, μα τον Άγιο, καλή συνέχεια κι η Παναγιά κοντά σου!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Καθόλου Γιώργο, η ευχαρίστηση είναι όλη δική μου. Χαίρομαι που βρήκες τις πληροφορίες χρήσιμες. Όσο για την επίπτωση της ανωνυμίας πάνω στο επίπεδο της συζήτησης, σ' αυτό έχεις δίκιο. Υπάρχουν μερικοί που είναι εκ φύσεως αγενείς και η ανωνυμία τους κάνει ακόμη χειρότερους. Αλλά υπάρχουν περισσότεροι ακόμη που αν και ανώνυμοι είναι πολύ πολιτισμένοι. Έτσι η επιρροή της ανωνυμίας δεν είναι διαβρωτική για τους πιό πολλούς κατά τη γνώμη μου. Όσο για την Κέρκυρα, ναι σωστά παρατήρησες, της έχω κάποια ξεχωριστή αδυναμία. Είμαι εντυπωσιαμένος με το πόσο καλά απέδωσες την χαρακτηριστική αυτή Κερκυρέικη (Κερκυραική, για την υπόλοιπη Ελλάδα) φράση. Δείχνει ότι κι' εσύ είσαι ένας Κερκυραίος στην καρδιά και σ' ευχαριστώ πολύ γι' αυτή την όμορφη Κερκυρέικη στιγμή που ούτε κι' εγώ θα μπορούσα να αποδώσω καλύτερα. Λοιπόν στο καλό κι' ο Άγιος ο Σπυρίδωνας να σε φυλάει και να σου δίνει ότι επιθυμείς. Κι' αν κάποτε βρεθούμε στη Σπιανάδα πίνουμε και καμμιά τσιτσιμπύρα του Χειμαριού. Με φιλικούς χαιρετισμούς. Τάσος (Dr.K. (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Ω που να σε χαρώ έυλογημένε, εσύ με τσι τσιτσιμπίρες σου κι εγώ με τα κουμ κουάτ μου. Μόνο μη γίνω φέσι ωρέ παιδί κι ύστερις μαθουν τσι πομπές μου στο πλατύ καντούνι! Θα γίνω βουρδούλιο μα τον Άγιο! LOL--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Βλέπω ξέρεις τη διάλεκτο καλύτερα κι' από μένα. Πρώτη φορά που είδα Κερκυρέικα, έστω και γραπτά, ύστερα από πολύ καιρό και νόμισα για λίγο που αλήθεια ήμουν πάλι στο Καμπιέλο, στα μουράγια η όπως το ανάφερες στο πλατύ καντούνι ακούγοντας τους ντόπιους να μιλάνε. Ήταν μία ωραία στιγμή. Σ' ευχαριστώ γι' αυτό. Και το κουμ κουάτ το υπέροχο αυτό λικέρ. Τι να σου πω Γιώργο. Δεν παύεις να με εκπλήττεις. Βάλε λοιπόν και το κουμ κουάτ στο μενού τυχόν συνάντησης και αφού είσαι και μυημένος σε Κερκυρέικα στέκια πάμε και στου Αντρανίκ για κανένα παγωτό μετά. Για την ώρα όμως η πραγματικότητα είναι δυστυχώς πολύ πιο πεζή. Ας είναι. Γειά χαρά για την ώρα και τα ξαναλέμε. Τάσος (Dr.K. (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Portals

Howdy. Just fyi, I've removed the Portal:Byzantine Empire link until it has been completed. The list (Portal:Contents/Portals) only shows finished portals. However, if you haven't already, you should add it to the directory (Wikipedia:Portal/Directory) which is meant to list all portals. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Hey, I have added in my own suggestion for the Byzantine Empire's lead, please take a look at the talk page. I know you haven't participated much in discussion for this, but I think it would be a good idea to alert all notable editors Tourskin (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tourskin. I was following the debate but got sidetracked due to editing the Byzantine portal. But I'll get back to the discussion. I'll leave my comments there. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure.Tourskin (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I new formula has been proposed, by Mcorazao. Its a less detailed version, but it follows a similar structure. If you have the time, lend your opinion. Respectfully, Tourskin (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged Tourskin. I completely agree with your view and trust your expertise and judgement in this. I'll drop a note nonetheless. Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I'm just a undergraduate for Philosophy and Human Biology, but you have a Phd!! It is your expertise and judgement that is called into play! Thank you for your pleasing compliments nonetheless!! Tourskin (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In this debate degrees are not as important as the knowledge of the subject and the clarity of the arguments. It is obvious that your knowledge of Byzantine History is excellent and I find the way you frame your arguments fair and concise. Therefore my original observation still stands. If it is complimentary, then fine, but it is well deserved. In turn, thank you very much for your kind comments and for your gracious invitation to the debate. Till we meet again. Τάσος (Dr.K. (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Τα φώτα σου

Φίλε Τάσο, αν μπορείς ρίξε σε παρακαλώ μια ματιά στη συζήτηση για τις εικόνες των Ελλήνων στο άρθρο Greeks. Νομίζω ότι η εικόνα της Υπατίας δεν πρέπει να συμπεριληφθεί. --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Βρέθηκε άκρη, τελικά μάλλον εγώ στραβώθηκα...--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Καλώς Γιώργο. Κανένα πρόβλημα. Θα τα ξαναπούμε. Στο καλό. Τάσος (Dr.K. (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)).

Uncyclopedia

What/where is that?

You can find the info here: Uncyclopedia. Bye for now. Dr.K. (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Methods engineering

I am working on making the Methods engineering article tring to make it useful. This is my first article so I'm not sure if the changes I have made have helped the article. I was wondering if you might take some time to look at the article and give me some feedback as to how to make the article better. Engineer 2009 (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks for the invitation. I'll have a look and let you know. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine studies

On 29 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Byzantine studies, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Rolex

Hello,

I noticed that in the previous Rolex version there was a conflict between the text's 1908 and the infobox' 1905. I then only checked the article's history in general and some interlanguage links, so therefore I assumed 1905 was correct. Thank you for your two contributions [1][2] . I've now checked google as you proposed, it's indeed as you wrote in your "everybody-should-be-happy"-version, "Wilsdorf and Davis" was founded in 1905 and the trademark Rolex 1908 registered.

What do you think, is the text in the infobox "Founded 1905 by Hans Wilsdorf and Alfred Davis" OK, or should it be changed to 1908? I simply leave this difficult decision up to you...

Best regards --Cyfal (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Cyfal for your nice message. You raise an interesting question and thanks for asking. The company was founded in 1905 but as "Wilsdorf-Davis", not "Rolex". Wilsdorf did not even patent the name Rolex until 3 years later. To make matters worse the actual company "Rolex SA" was founded in Geneva in 1919. So we have now 3 dates: 1905 (original company), 1908 (Rolex name patented), 1919 (Rolex as a Swiss company). Rolex, on their website seems to be very vague about their chronologies as far as I can tell. They don't even seem to mention 1905 or 1908. If you noticed I did not go out of my way to phrase my edits so that a unique founding date would be specified . I only described the events and their chronology. The reason was I couldn't make up my mind as to the exact founding date of Rolex as a brand. I think that as long as we explain these facts in the main article we can put 1905 in the infobox. I also checked the article on General Motors. When GM was founded it was not called GM but the date quoted as the GM founding date is for its parent company (a holding company for Buick). So we can go with 1905. However we could also consult a few people on the article talk page. We can then decide after a consultation, but for the moment 1905 seems to be a good choice. Let me know. Take care for now. Dr.K. (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should leave it as it is, because there is no real strong argument to decide between 1905, 1908 and 1919, and for my personal feeling 1905 is the best choice. I also checked the interlanguage wikis (as far as I could read them), they also use 1905. (Nevertheless the english article is now the best one concerning this issue, thanks to your modification...) --Cyfal (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, let's leave it at 1905. Thank you for your kind remarks. It's been a pleasure. All the best. Dr.K. (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Transmission of Greek philosophical ideas in the Middle Ages

Transmission of Greek philosophical ideas in the Middle Ages was written by someone with a head full of prejudice and misconceptions claiming we had lost our philosphy and it only survived thanks to the Arabs!! He has been adding material from this pile of tripe to Greek philosophy as well, which apparently seems to have stopped in the Hellenistic era! Since you are interested in things Medieval I thought I would ask you for any sources you may have come across, esp papers etc. I am aware of a couple of books on Google book with limited preview and Halsal's site but was wondering if you had anything else I could use. Thanks Dr.K!Xenovatis (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Xenovatis. It's always nice to hear from a friend and scholar like you. Unfortunately on this particular subject I am not an expert at all. It is an obscure topic and I'm sure that all kinds of fringe theories can fester in such an environment perpetrated in the interest of all kinds af agendas. This however should be relatively easy to set straight because the field of Greek philosophy and its transmission through the Romans, Byzantium etc. should more or less be clear and rather well documented. I haven't researched the topic but I could check on the Internet for sources. Aside from that I don't have any other resources at hand except if I go to a library. As far as the "Transmission of Greek philosophical ideas in the Middle Ages" article we need to de-POV it when we find the sources to counter these arguments and clean up the Greek Philosophy article in the process as well. Thanks for the information and let me know about any new developments. I will let you know when I find anything. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response Tasso. Unfortunately the particular era of Medieval Greek philosophy is underexamined and ignored by Western scholarship. Part of it is a desire to claim for the West the Classical heritage and part a remnant of the older tradition of Frankish hatred of Romans (which are dubbed "Byzantines"). The perception in their minds is exactly what is reported in the article, that we forgot all about our literature and culture which was preserved by the Arabs and transmitted via them to the West, who are of course the True Heirs (c)(TM) of Greek tradition. I tried to explain it briefly to a Westerner in the Greeks talk page, read it and tell me what you think. BTW you will be pleased to note that article made GA. Contacted Yiannismaru to ask for tips on improving it to FA standard. I would be gratefull for your input that matter and any ideas for improvement. I attach some sources you might find interesting wrt to matters Medieval,

• http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MA/BYZ.HTM
• http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/

This is by Anthony Kaldelis of Ohio State. An Orthodox history of the Parthenon. You might find it interesting.Xenovatis (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)