User talk:Dr.K./Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dr.K.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

See [1] and user contributions. It might be prudent to keep a watchful eye... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 09:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Nice to see you are getting the hang of the SPI side of things. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dr. I was reviewing User:Hadgimarvi's edits, and I stumbled upon this article he'd created, which was a shameless copypasta of [2], in its entirety. I've (somewhat hastily) reworded it, but I gotta dash, so if you could take a look too, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! 213.7.56.181 (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi anonymous editor. It is very nice to see you. I guess this is another one of your investigations. :) I passed the article from the copyvio detector and it appears that you cleaned it quite thoroughly. Copyvio detection is very important because aside from possible adverse legal ramifications, it can bring the project to disrepute. It is very rare that an anonymous editor helps in that area, so I thank you for your tireless efforts. Whenever you have a chance, please drop by for any reason, even for a chat. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I didn't know about that tool. The picture of Beratli he's uploaded appears to have been taken straight from Beratli's Facebook page, so I've tagged it on Commons. This is almost certainly a copyvio as well, but I've not been able to find the original. 213.7.56.181 (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Earwig's copyvio tool is very useful and not very well known. There is also this reverse image search tool which I found useful several times. Unfortunately it doesn't come up with anything regarding the Port of Gemikonagi picture, which is an almost certain copyvio because it is an old picture. For tough or intractable copyvio issues I always ask Diannaa for assistance. I will do the same for this rather obvious copyvio and I will let you know. You can, if you wish, ask any questions from her directly. Thank you again. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help. The admin who deleted Beratli's photo nominated the port photo for deletion too. 213.7.56.181 (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No, thank you. I didn't really do that much. You did all the hard work. :) I'm glad the admin who deleted the first followed up with the second. Commons is a rather unfamiliar place for me, aside from the uploads I have made, and I wouldn't expect them to be so efficient, but this is a welcome surprise. I'll inform Dianna. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is a discussion in Greece's talk page about the matter. Feel free to contribute there. Hansi667 (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr.K i believe you understand that your warning was not needed ? I mean is one thing writing a warning where a warning is needed , but is another thing writing warnings for no reason whatsoever . Please be more careful next time , because then it touches the borders of WP:HAR . No hard feelings though :) , as a person you have my respect Gjirokastra15 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: Gjiro, did you see I reverted myself before you came to my talkpage because I saw your explanation? BTW, I also respect you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting it then , and for your good words :) . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It all happened so fast. Sorry for disturbing your talkpage and thank you also for understanding and for your nice words about me. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I checked the time signatures and you replied at talk Greece at 17:15:57 UTC while I left my message on your talk at 17:16:12. These edits happened at practically the same time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I added ALT1 for the nominator, so will you re-review it? --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho: Hi George, I replied there. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dr, I'm wondering if you've got time to offer your input here. What started out as a content dispute has devolved into my being accused of vandalism, after I'd attempted to compromise, simply by replacing an out-of-date population figure from an unpublished list with that of the CoE source that'd been cited right next to it. [3] The CoE is unambiguous about it being the urban population. I can't help but think that this latest rv was performed out of spite.

Also, people here are "voting" in favour of moving Sinop, Turkey to Sinop, simply because they don't like the current title, while my pleas are being ignored. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that the Limassol issue has been resolved in a compromise which includes the 176,700 figure of CoE. I briefly checked the discussion on your talkpage and it does not include the CoE figure of 176,700 neither any mention of CoE, so I'm not sure where the other figures come from, but given the compromise, this should be a moot point now. Please let me know if my analysis is correct. Regarding the vandalism message on your talk, it is not justified in any way and i will make a note of that.

As far as Sinop, you made some very good points, but reading through the arguments, rather quickly I have to admit, I didn't notice that you were opposed to the move strongly. I have to leave now, but when I return I'll check that page again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Things are moving rather fast, I see that the vandalism warning was graciously removed by Subtropical man. There goes another contentious point. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose this will do for Limassol. In the infobox, it's listed under the wrong date, but -- on second thought -- I don't think I'll pursue it any further. Well, there was no valid argument I could be opposed to, really. The nominator's was false and subsequent ones amounted to little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thanks for looking into this so quickly. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't mention it. It was a pleasure. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "repeatition" is a very common misspelling. [4], [5], [6] 213.7.22.7 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I started the investigation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The sock has created a new account and is accusing me of being User:TU-nor. He also seems to have collected some unrelated IPs. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Usual clueless/battleground MO of the master. I'll check it out as soon as I can. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Could we get an admin to look at this now? He continues to very much knowingly "confuse" me with IPs who vandalised WP, as early as January 2013. There's a limit to how much abuse I'm willing to take from this person. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

SPI is running slow due to overload. This case has been initiated by an obvious sock for sheer harassment. S/he will be indeffed in due course. You should not worry about it in the least. Regardless, when I return I'll see what I can do. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

we have a problem with that editor who thinks he knows the truth. He's new, ok, but making major changes, adding material to sourced text, etc, as you've seen. I'll comment on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I'll check into the problem soon. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. He spread a lot of OR in many articles. Thanks for leaving the message on his talk. He appears to have stopped for now. Nice talking to you. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You accused me for being a sock. I don't really know what this sock means, but if you had something with my edit on Panagiotis Kone than I won't edit it again. And please can you explain me what a sock is, cause I have only a month as an contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betterday123098 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.....here's a kitty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.K.#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.K.#

Mastermuttsir (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) That's a very nice gesture and a wonderful picture. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Don't know if you know it, but you helped me out a lot when I first started editing regularly on Wikipedia. So just want to say thanks and happy holiday to you. TerryAlex (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What a nice surprise! Thank you very much TerryAlex for this nice barnstar and your very generous evaluation of any assistance I may have offered you when you were a new editor. :) Now that I think about it, during our early discussions, I was impressed by your civility and quick understanding of the policies. Since then I have seen you grow into an excellent editor whose judgment and edits I greatly respect. Your work in the difficult area of K-pop has helped improve many of these articles and is greatly appreciated. So, I don't know if you know it, but you are among the editors whose work I value greatly and I am thankful for. Best of the Season to you. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you which I thought the IP had said "Rv, unjustified" after IP quickly revert done here: [7]. It really agitated me. I hope I didn't upset you. Sorry JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all Judecca. I was actually trying to support your edit. Thank you for the clarification, regardless. It was very nice of you. Take care and Best of the Season to you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dr.K, I made some subtle improvements on the following page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian#People which has seen some neglect and POV issues. More specifically I improved the info slightly and removed the word "modern" for Greek Macedonians which is potential POV related to Macedonian nationalism which denies Greek presence in the region of Macedonia prior to 20th century. Full explanation of my edits can be found in user Local Hero's page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Local_hero#Explanation_request_for_reverting_all_of_my_edits_and_fixs_without_consderation I'm hoping if can you review my changes and appoint to my errors or possible POVs caused unintentionally by me? Just asking for neutral opinion, not meant to drag you in edit wars or so. Just asking if I'm doing something wrong. I apologize if me request for review/check on my changes is impolite action, I know I could have used the corresponding article's talk page but I feel no attention comes to, stall, for weeks and or months in some cases. Thanks for your attention, and for your good work in Wikipedia!--AuditoreEzio (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi AuditoreEzio. I didn't realise until now that you are the mobile account of Silent Resident. Thank you for your nice message. It is no problem at all. You are always welcome on my talkpage, so please feel free to drop by any time. I checked through your edits and at first glance they seem fine to me. I know you are a careful editor and I respect you. However you tried to edit what amounts to a wiki hornet's nest so try to take this conflict with a large grain of salt. Since you asked me I will try to delve into this a bit more but I need some time. Give me a few days. In the meantime I'll watch this to try to add my light input here and there, as needed. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Happened to see this and made a couple of (minor) changes. Hope you don't mind. 93.109.179.224 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah,thanks guys, I appreciate it! Glad to prove useful. Doing my best to improve Wikipedia. Have a nice day!--AuditoreEzio (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your civility and well considered input. It must be the spirit of the season. It is rare to encounter such pleasant exchanges on this project. :) Take care guys and Best of the Season to you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Dr. K. Besides the dead links referred to in Bad Astronomy's article on Planet X(http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/nutshell.html), here is what Bad Astronomy says about 'unusual weather patterns':

"First off, surprise! The weather isn't all that weird. We are coming off of an El Nino, which is a weather pattern that disrupts climates across the world. Also, we are now into springtime, when things like tornadoes are common. Seeing tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma is not only not unusual, but is expected!...'Conclusion: the weather isn't any weirder than it usually is at the end of an El Nino, so the claims of weird weather are wrong.'"

What?! His website is hyper-linked as a way to introduce a scientific perspective to the wiki. Instead, it is blatantly implying climate change isn't real. I was told he writes against "climate change denial", but this article puts him along with the deniers. If he is supposed to represent scientific consensus (which is what it seems like was intended), then the logical approach here would be to either remove this article that encourages climate denial, or replace it with another site that doesn't misguide readers into thinking that weather patterns aren't unusual. (This is unequivocally bad science, & a bad representation of it).

thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.102.217 (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I haven't looked into the details of this in depth, so I am not going to challenge your opinion. The primary thing I wanted to accomplish by my intervention was to stop the constant reversions and also counter the argument of the dead links that can be repaired by using WebCite or the Internet archive. Given that you make your points clearly and you have no trouble communicating in a knowledgeable as well as civil manner, you could perhaps discuss this subject on the article talk to persuade the other editors and achieve some form of consensus. Personally speaking, although I am not an expert in this field, at first glance I find your arguments convincing, so I think you should give discussion on the article talkpage a try. Let me know if you need my opinion during that discussion process, if you wish to engage in it. Best of the Season to you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if you have any advice on how to deal with this. I've tried starting a discussion on the article's talk page and left a message on their talk page. Though I've not technically crossed 3RR, I don't wanna revert them again. 93.109.179.224 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You are correct in that the BBC source supports only 200,000 and since it is the source cited in the article, the supported figure is 200,000. However the French source estimates 400,000 although it is not quoted in the diaspora article but rather in Britons in France. So the citations have to be changed in the diaspora article. I see also that you were reverted by a sock IP so that the main account does not breach 3RR. I will leave them a note. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I would oppose changing any of the figures in the table. Clearly, these two sources employed different methodology or used a different data set, or there would've been no such disparity. If the table's gonna be comparing apples to oranges, then (a) that'll need to be stated, (b) entries should be alphabetised and (c) the ranking removed. 93.109.179.224 (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The BBC figures are from 2006 so that may explain some of the difference. I tried to patch it up temporarily by citing the 400k figure. As far as your comments I agree. The ranking has to be removed and the underlying assumptions clearly stated. Otherwise the BBC data can stay but that should also be stated. You can try and fix it if you wish and I'll keep an eye out for any reversions. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to get to that tomorrow. Thanks again. 93.109.179.224 (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Anytime. Don't mention it. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Γεια σου φιλε μου, να σε ρωτησω, εχω παλι μπελαδες με τον FuturePerfectAtSunshine, μπορω να σου ζητησω μια χαρη; Μπορεις να δεις αν υπαρχει καποια αποδειξη οτι η κιτρινη σημαια με μαυρο δικεφαλο αετο, οντως χρησιμοποιοειται στο Αγιον Ορος και στους ναους ολης της χωρας?,Εγω εχω παει στην Αθωνικη πολιτεια, εχω δει την σημαια αυτη παντου, δηλαδη στα καμπαναρια, στα γραφεια των μοναχων, στην κεντρρικη πλατεια καθε ιερας μονης, παντου, σε ολη την επικρατεια του Αγιου Ορους, αλλα η αληθεια δεν εχει σημασια αν δεν εχεις επισημες αποδειξεις. Γιατι οταν, σημερα, πηρα το κουραγιο να βελτιωσω την σελιδα Mount Athos, στο οποιο ελειπε η κιτρινη σημαια απο το infobox, και τη εβαλα, ο future perfect παλι αναιρεσε τις βελτιωσεις που εκανα και ζηταει επισημες αποδειξεις για την επισημοτητα της σημαιας, αλλα δεν νομιζω το Αγιο Ορος, οπως και η Ελληνορθοδοξη Εκκλησια εχουν ενδιαφερον για την Βικιπεδεια ωστε να μας δωσουν αποδειξεις. Απλως, αφου η κιτρινη σημαια ηδη χρησιμοποιειται στο info box της σελιδας Greek Orthodox Church οπως και οφειλε, γιατι οχι και στην σελιδα του Mount Athos?. Οποτε απλως ενημερωσα αναλογως την σελιδα Mount Athos οπου ελειπε. Ομως ο future perfect διαφωνει να γινει αυτο χωρις αποδειξεις, και τωρα πλεον αμφισβητει οχι μονο την σημαια στο infoobox του Mount Athos page αλλα και την σημαια στο infobpox της Greek Orthodox Church page... Και εγω δεν εχω ιδεα πως αποδεικνυουμε την επισημοτητα μιας σημαιας? Εχω παει στο Αγιο Ορος, ειδα οτι ειναι η σημαια του, αλλα δεν μπορω να αποδειξω οτι ειναι σημαια του. Στο google δεν βρισκω αποδειξεις οτι ειναι τεκμηριωμενα η επισημη σημαια της Εκκλησιας μας και του Αγιου Ορους… Ειναι κριμα να αφαιρεθουν οι σημαιες των Ελληνικων Εκκλησιων και του Ορους Αθους επειδη δεν ξερω που να βρω αποδειξεις οτι οντως ειναι αληθινες, επισημες και χρησιμοποιουνται. Αν εχεις στοιχεια οτι η σημαια οντως ειναι η επισημη της Ελληνορθοδοξης Εκκλησιας και του Αγιου Ορους, πες να ξερουμε, αλλιως αυριο ο future perfect θα την αφαιρεσει απο τις σελιδες (ετσι λεει, εβαλε citation για τωρα, ενω αυριο θα την αφαιρεσει αν δεν φερω αποδειξεις), παρολο που τον διαβεβαιωσα οτι οντως η σημαια χρησιμοποιειται ειλικρινα. Θελησα να φερω το θεμα υποοψιν εμπειρων χρηστων οπως εσυ, γιατι ολες οι ξενες ορθοδοξες εκκλησιες εχουν σημαια στν Βικιοπεδια, γινεται η Ελληνορθοδοξη Εκκλησια να μεινει χωρις? Εψαξα ηδη στο γουγλ δεν βρηκα κατι να αποδεικνυει οτι το Αγιο Ορος και η Ελληνικη Εκκλησια εχουν οντως την κιτρινη σημαια με το μαυρο δικεφαλο αετο ως επισημη σημαια... Για περισσοτερα info, εχουμε συζητηση στο Talk Page του Mount Athos με τιτλο "flags, official languages, etc..." Αν τυχον εχεις αποδειξεις που μπορει να μας φανουν χρησιμες, εισαι καλοδεχουμενος να τις μοιραστεις με μας για να λυθει η ασκοπη διαμαχη. Τα λεμε. -AuditoreEzio (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Γειά σου AuditoreEzio. Δεν είμαι σίγουρος για το θέμα αυτό της σημαίας του Αγίου Όρους καθότι δεν ξέρω αν το Άγιο Όρος χρησιμοποιεί τη σημαία σαν την επίσημη σημαία της περιοχής η απλώς σαν τη καθιερωμένη σημαία της Ελληνορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας. Επειδή η Εκκλησία και το Άγιον Όρος είναι συνυφασμένα νομίζω ότι τέτοια διαφοροποίηση μπορεί να είναι κάπως δύσκολη. Αλλά θα προσπαθήσω να δω αν μπορώ να βρω κάτι επί του θέματος. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ασε, ολα τακτοποιηθηκαν, βρηκα επισημα εγγραφα και ντοκουμεντα της Αγιορειτικης Πολιτειας, οπως το χαρτι αδειας εισοδου στα συνορα της πολιτειας, ολα εχουν τον Δικεφαλο Αετο εκτυπωμενο. Οπως και βρηκα φωτογραφιες με τη σημαια. Πιστευω το θεμα λυθηκε με λιγη τυχη. Ευχαριστω παντως! -AuditoreEzio (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Δεν έκανα τίποτα, αλλά ευχαριστώ για τα καλά λόγια. Έκανες καλή δουλειά, μπράβο. Γειά χαρά και Καλές Γιορτές. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

AuditoreEzio, ο Future Perfect at Sunrise πιστεύει πως για να θεωρήσουμε την σημαία ως επίσημη αυτό θα πρέπει να υπαγορεύεται από το νόμο. Έτσι, δυστυχώς, μάλλον αμφιβάλλω πως το θέμα έληξε. 31.153.50.47 (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Αν ειναι ετσι, τοτε μαλλον δεν εχω ελπιδα... Και γω που νομιζα οτι Wikipedia is all about facts... -AuditoreEzio (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Γι' αυτό και εισηγήθηκα να βάλεις την σημαία αλλού στο κείμενο με λεζάντα κάτι σε: "The flag of the Greek Orthodox Church, which is customarily flown in Mount Athos". 31.153.50.47 (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Εχεις δικιο. Δοκιμασα την ιδεα σου και ειναι ωραια! Σε ευχαριστω για τις πολυτιμες συμβουλες σου, κριμα που ο FutPerf δεν εχει εποικοδομητικο πνευμα σαν εσενα. Το μονο που κανει ειναι να αναιρει (revert) τυφλα τις προσπαθειες των υπολοιπων χωρις να προτεινει εναλλακτικες λυσεις στα προβληματα, οπως εσυ με την ιδεα σου για image-thumbnail-next-to-text. Σε ευχαριστω, να εχεις καλο βραδυ! -AuditoreEzio (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@AuditoreEzio:  Done. Supplied three citations with quotes, page numbers and urls to target the specific wording in the snippets. Cheers. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You re awesome! Thanks. -AuditoreEzio (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Great stuff. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much guys for your nice comments. It was my pleasure. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Warm greetings for a winter season. Do you watch the Nicene Creed article? The latest edit and reversion has to do with a diacritical mark in "Nicene Creed" in the Greek language (in the article's opening sentence). It's not in a place where I've ever seen the mark before, so I am wondering if it's correct. Would you take a look and make any necessary adjustment? Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Best of the Season to you too Evensteven. It is always nice talking to you. :) The tilde on the definite article "τῆς" is the standard diacritic (perispomene) for the genitive of the traditional polytonic system. Example: "τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου". The IP edit wanted to remove it but this is only valid in the modern monotonic system. I hope this answers your question. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much. I've not really studied the language, but I know the alphabet and some words and can generally sound out any word. I'm getting faster, as I like to have some fluency for chanting at church. (We use English mostly, but Greek is perhaps 5-10%.) I think the printing I see must mostly be the monotonic system, as the frequency of diatonics is less than in your example and some other quotes I've seen here on WP. Blessed Nativity fast to you! Evensteven (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Evensteven for your wishes. I didn't know and wouldn't have expected that the monotonic system was so prevalent in traditional religious texts. I'm not sure if that is a modern phenomenon or it has always been that way. It could be perhaps a simplified version of the traditional Koine/katharevousa text which was adopted some time ago. Very interesting. Have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of a guess on my part, but the "texts" I'm reading from are American print jobs intended for the general church membership, or in music used at the chanting stand, all of which is designed to be bilingual so that it can be used by English-speakers if or when the original Greek is employed. I haven't spent much time in the service books, and have not particularly seen what is used by the clergy, and I expect they could be quite a different matter. I presume that the monotonic system is a modern, rather generic simplification? Perhaps it is also designed more for secular use in the present time, rather than for being applied to Koine Greek? Our own pastor is an American-born convert himself, a native English-speaker who learned (Koine) Greek in seminary. He is quite fluent in that, but I understand he finds it challenging to try to conduct a conversation in everyday Greek when he visits. I would expect his scholarly training in Koine, however, would have been done in the traditional way. For what it's worth, though, I have seen Greek text printed for one-time or short-term use entirely without diacritics also, not even monotonic.

One must understand that, with the rapid spread of Orthodoxy into the west, there has always been a scramble to translate all sorts of texts into the common language, and English has been among the foremost of those. In the 15 years since I became Orthodox, there has been a veritable explosion of materials available in English where none were before. Along with the translations, there are also references back to the originals, and those are sometimes provided as quick auxiliaries produced by those of us who can copy but know only a little beyond the alphabet. The experts have more than had their hands busy meantime, and the improvements are remarkable. So some of my experience is rapidly becoming what you might call "historical". That 15 years includes most of the lifetime and expansion of the Internet, which has had quite an impact as well in making materials readily accessible. So I expect that when Greek is used in English-speaking churches in the future, the chances are the greater that a restoration of the traditional diacritics is likely to be ever commoner.

May you also have a very Merry Christmas and blessed new year. Evensteven (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven, monotonic orthography is a simplification, but not a "generic" one. The tones the accents are meant to represent were lost from speech near-2,000 years ago. Polytonic katharevousa was abolished after the fall of the Junta in 1974. I've no idea about Orthodox clergy, so I can't comment on that. I hope you don't mind my intrusion. Happy Christmas. 31.153.50.47 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks 31.153.50.47. That goes a way to explaining to me the references to language differences I have heard but have found rather confusing. It's no surprise to me that 2000 years is likely to produce major changes for any number of reasons. But, whatever I've seen regarding diacritics (and I may be wrong in having thought I've seen a real monotonic system used), I'm sure the underlying language itself has always been Koine, untouched from the original. I would only suppose that as the Church gets better established in America, we English-speakers will only become more adept in seeing that the Greek quotes are fully accurate. We also have a growing American monastic community that has done tremendous support work, from which we draw continually. Καλα Χριστιανου (hope I got that basically right). Evensteven (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's actually "Καλά Χριστούγεννα". "Καλα Χριστιανου" actually means the "Goods of the Christian". But no problem, the meaning is clear enough, especially given the context of the season. :) Thank you both for the background regarding the diacritic systems. I always assumed that the ancient text we learned in school was always written with the polytonic. But perhaps they just added the diacritics after the fact. Καλά Χριστούγεννα to both of you. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that the printing of Greek diacritics is simply a matter of course in Greece, but it's not been a commonly available alternative all the time where English is the primary tongue. We're just improving our knowledge, and internationalization is also becoming increasingly common generally. And thanks for setting me straight on the greeting. I do remember hearing that before now, but my memory is not what it was. Perhaps I might have come up with it if I had paused to think of the root words, commonly enough used in English (genesis, generation, etc). But I stand a better chance in any case now that I have ventured this try. And now I'm ready to spring it at church this year. Cheers. Evensteven (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Now with the official adoption of the monotonic system in Greece, the use of the polytonic characters is not common any longer. I only use the monotonic characters. Actually the use of the polytonic system was a relic of the past which had no obvious benefit in any way and to sustain its orthography one had to learn so many rules that the only people happy with that system were the high school language teachers. So choosing the monotonic system for the rendering of the Greek is the correct step in any circumstances. I also see that you are fast recovering your knowledge of Greek etymology. I am very glad to see that. And even happier to know that you are going to use the expression as a Christmas greeting at your church. :) Take care Evensteven and please don't hesitate to drop by for any reason, especially with any language questions. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Are you saying, then, that it is now considered "correct" to write Koine Greek using the monotonic system of diacritics? I interpret "official adoption" to be by the Greek government, so do you know if the Church has accepted that adoption for its own use as well? (Or is Church acceptance even uniform?) I suppose the answer might influence which diacritics we'd like to use in the Nicene Creed article.

As for the greeting, we just have fun at church trading similar greetings in "extra" languages when we can. My experience indicates that the various jurisdictions in America all celebrate Orthodoxy's international character by using at least a second language in some portions of services, and it spills out into informal greetings from there. Greek, Antiochian, and OCA churches all trade the Paschal greeting/response "Χρίστος ανέστι / Αλιθός ανέστι" in at least English, Greek, Arabic, and Russian (Slavonic), and often as many more languages as there happen to be nationalities represented (like Serbian). Similarly, it is common for members to read the gospel at Agape Vespers in as many languages as can be fluently read in the community. My own church once strained the patience even of the bishop by mounting readings in 21 languages at the service! Greek is second only to English with us, of course, but we dabble wherever we can. How American at its best: unity in diversity, e pluribus unum (from many, one). And how Christian: after all, even at His birth Christ drew people to Himself from far places. Evensteven (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The monotonic system was adopted by the Greek government and is the system that is used throughout the secular part of the state, in education, organisations etc. It is further simplified in that single-syllable words do not carry diacritics. This precludes the use of diacritics on any definite articles. However I'm not sure about the extent of adoption of the monotonic system by the Orthodox Church. I am fairly certain that they did not change their ancient canon books which I suspect are in polytonic. But this is different from the use of the monotonic by the Church for everyday affairs, correspondence, literature etc., which may well be in monotonic. But I am not 100% certain about it. For Wikipedia, due to the traditional use of polytonic in ancient religious matters, I think the use of the polytonic should be ok, although I cannot quote any wiki policy on that. And you are right about the strength of the Church, reflected in its diversity, since the time of the birth of Christ, as you so eloquently, and in such timely manner, put it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much. I may put a blurb on the Nicene Creed talk page to describe some of this. There's one more point I am trying to understand, though. Would using the monotonic system with Koine Greek in place of polytonic alter or hamper the meaning in any way? I take it that diacritics are all about notating aspects of pronunciation, which would not change anyway. Or would it, or would any of that polytonic notational aspect, if absent or altered, alter the understanding of the text? In other words, would a change to the monotonic system (in Koine Greek) be free of any but aesthetic considerations (for the classic style of notation)? Evensteven (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be mostly aesthetic. Some of the diacritics such as daseia used to denote the presence of an "h" before the starting vowel of a word but it has no real effect on modern pronunciation. Similarly other diacritics denote other pronuciation hints which have become redundant. So omitting them would not affect the modern pronunciation or meaning of the words, but as with all simplifications, it presumably hampers the understanding of a scholar focusing on the ancient dialect traits and pronunciation. But then again a scholar would use the original text. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. Thanks so much! It's funny how these little details can sometimes do so much to reveal the essence of things. Evensteven (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Looking into the details of something as seemingly innocuous as reducing the number of diacritics one can find out some unexpected and interesting facts. In that regard, I also thank you for opening this line of inquiry. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The second edit removing 'hellenistic state' was an accident, I did not intend to do that. Besides, I undid one of your reverts that states some of Aristotle's works, as the article really does not need it and plus the wording sounds better with 'was' rather than 'where in part of'. Luxure Σ 04:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough. Thank you for the notification. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc, if I happen to say something wrong/unreasonable in that discussion, you are welcome to correct me anytime. Thanks Doc :) --TerryAlex (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words TerryAlex, but the main reason I have not participated in that discussion is that I agree with your well-made comments and I also trust your judgment. I was also impressed by the quality of your arguments, as for example this one, and your civility. K-pop articles are much better off because you are around. I am very pleased about that, because, if for nothing else, it makes my life a lot easier in that area, since I agree with you almost by default and I know that your knowledge and expertise can help defend the quality of these articles. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're a frequent editor of kpop articles, feel free to join a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture. We're trying to discuss consistency, redundancy, over-fannishness, and other issues. BTW, your photos are gorgeous! :) Shinyang-i (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Shinyang-i for your kind invitation and also for your nice remark about my pictures. I may join the conversation, but I am glad to see now that editors like yourself, Random86 and TerryAlex are knowledgeable and capable of addressing these widespread problems present in these articles. All three of you have my confidence and I agree and support your actions. I will make my opinion known if there is a need for it. But, seeing so many capable new editors in this area, whose actions I respect, makes me feel relaxed enough to say that I can live with whatever you decide.

After so many years of edit-warring conflict in this area and countless sockpuppet investigations, seeing new editors like you and the others get seriously involved in cleaning up these articles, makes me feel like my job is done, at least as far as K-pop is concerned. Aside from some veteran editors in that area like my friend Drmies and some great admin support whenever there was a need to protect an article, run an SPI, or block a sock, there were not many editors to provide support on the ground, at least in the early years. Thankfully this has changed. Certainly I will keep an eye on developments to provide my support if needed, and of course I will watch out for the ever-present socks. Regardless, if you think my input would be useful on a given issue please let me know. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Random86Shinyang-iCan you provide an opinion on A Pink and Crayon Pop, Dr.K? Random86 and I desperately wanted that discussion to end, but it's so hard to change the K pop articles' mentality.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Even after Drmies's comments, not all editors were able to realize the true underlying problem of K-pop-related articles.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel like if we give in, more and more unnecessary details will keep on piling up to these K-pop articles and they will never end. And that is what we definitely don't want. We need to reset the standards, no matter how late, otherwise, the problem can never get better. Merry Christmas to you, Dr.K.--TerryAlex (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of non-notable fluff that has to be removed. I support your removals and those of Shinyang-i and Random86 and your rationales for doing so. I also see that you have encountered some resistance but let's see how the centralised discussion goes. I'm going to check the discussion at A Pink and try to see how I can help. As far as Crayon Pop I checked the foreign-language sources and they look like tabloids to me but since they are foreign I'm not sure what they are. Please let me know how good they are. Take care and Merry Christmas to you too. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If we can settle the current issue with Crayon Pop, then A Pink should be fine as well. Here are two roughly English translations for Crayon Pop, Doc. Similar outfits, tell me if it is such a big deal. The original band was even being accused once too. I read some Soompi's comments and most people don't care either. 1st article Soompi's article --TerryAlex (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

For the two incidents being discussed at Talk:Crayon Pop#Momoiro Clover Z, Google seems to indicate that Rocket News and Cyzo Woman are tabloids. I don't know about Newsen, but it looks ok. JoongAng Ilbo is a reliable source (used for the second incident). The question we are trying to answer is this: Are accusations automatically notable if reliable sources publish articles about it? Thanks for your help, Dr. K. --Random86 (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question Random86 and also difficult to answer because it depends on many factors. One factor is the breadth of coverage, another is the importance of the subject matter. Coverage by a few serious sources may be not be enough for inclusion if the matter is trivial. So we have to decide, is this matter trivial? To answer this question, I read the two articles TerryAlex gave me and I just can't believe that people spend their time on superficial nonsense like this. Perhaps the image people for these groups have run out of ideas for the design of the group uniforms and the fans have nothing better to do but complain about the clothes the musicians wear. I just can't believe this stuff. The group members getting dressed like Christmas trees and people complaining that they look alike. Does this superficial fluff belong in an encyclopedia? I would say not, at least not in a serious one, even if it got picked up by a few serious sources. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Random86: That's a good question Random86 and also difficult to answer because it depends on many factors. Yes Doc, there is "an exception" to everything, but let me tell you what, 99% of the cases with K-pop is exactly the "nonsense" stuff that you just read. That is why Random86 and I have been arguing that "anything that comes out of the netizens should just be omitted".--TerryAlex (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

K-pop fans just think all K-pop artists are gods and everything, even a piece of dust about them, should be included on here. There is a separate article for every single endorsement deal List of Girls' Generation endorsements (and some users even told me that this is encyclopedic and they can use this for their research), their awards article is longer than "The Beatles"'s too. And have you read my recent talk page's discussion? People still argue with me on why I took out the MV section on the page. --TerryAlex (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look again at that discussion to get a better idea of what's involved but I need a bit of time. I'll let you know. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Dr.K.,

I think we had got off to a bad start (several times). I apologise for my behaviour towards you and on specific articles. I thought you were like the other editors, but you aren't, you are, at least, willing to compromise. Anyway I am writing this to apologise for my past behaviour and rudeness and hopefully relations can be normalised. It is holiday season. If you don't mind telling, what kind of doctor are you or is that just your username?

Kala Christougenna, Luxure Σ 07:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Luxure for your nice words. It's no problem. For me the bad beginnings you refer to is just water under the bridge. It is normal in that area for editors to sometimes come into conflict with each other, so misunderstandings happen frequently. What saves us at the end of the day is seeing the other person/editor under the light of AGF. So thank you for that and you have also my apology if I ever spoke to you strongly. My username is the nickname my students have given me because of my Ph.D. degree in Engineering. I was surprised at first when they started calling me that, but, on reflection, I thought it sounded nice and I adopted it. G'day, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year Down Under. Take care. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natalia_Poklonskaya&diff=639230228&oldid=639230000, I think that is a better way to direct people to the discussion, but i can understand why you want a permanent link, feel free to revert me if you feel permanence is more important than proper direction. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Thank you for letting me know. I thought about that, given that when the link gets archived it is a hassle to locate it. But there is also an argument to be made about navigating to the current version. Since you think it's better I will not change it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be really nice if you one could do both. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps next time I will include both links. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I meant it would be cool if wikipdia had a way to link to a section that followed archives, that would be a neat feature. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I got that much. No worries. :) I knew you were talking in general and the personal pronoun "you" in your message did not refer to me. But since the software doesn't have the feature I did it manually, since I found the idea to be good. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Diannaa (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you very much Dianna for the beautiful message. I was preparing to give you one also, but you beat me to that. :) Merry Christmas and Happy New year to you too. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, merry Christmas to the both of you. Y'all are valuable contributors and good colleagues. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: To you too Doc. All the Best of the Season. Always nice talking to you. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Dr Mies. Best wishes for the holidays! -- Diannaa (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I see "the Dr. K" and Dr. Mies are in; well have a good relaxing Christmas time holiday and take care. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I guess I am in. Technically speaking, Drmies just paid a brief visit. :) Thank you very much Kierzek for the humorous moment, and for your kind wishes. Have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year! Cheers. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the one and only article I plan to write (Church of the Creator) and I believe it was deleted in error -- possibly because the editor didn't bother to even read it.

I don't want to be involved in a "war," but I was told a year ago to write an article about the church so that the redirect could be changed, and now that I've done so, it gets deleted? That's not OK.

Forget the article. I won't touch it again (unless I can get the church leaders to authorize use of their written material).

Bohemian Gal (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you won't allow my article, how's about changing the INCORRECT redirect that says "church of the creator" is the creativity movement. IT'S NOT, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the white supremacist group may not use the name Church of the Creator in any form.

This page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_(religion) is NOT AFFILIATED WITH the Church of the Creator, but this is the page you get when you type in that search phrase.

If you guys would do that, the article wouldn't be necessary. I was simply doing what I told to do back in January to get this egregious error corrected.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This page also needs to be corrected, as Church of the Creator is NOT AFFILIATED WITH the Creativity Movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_the_Creator&redirect=no

Please make sure this is fixed, along with the other page -- it's the very least you guys can do.

Thank you.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

When I type in "church of the creator" it takes me here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_(religion)

That's the problem -- ^^THIS is not Church of the Creator.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

One more question, and then I'm done - I promise. Why is it a "war" when I don't talk with someone before reinstating an article that I spent a lot of time writing, but it's not "war" when someone deletes that article without, apparently, even reading it or providing an explanation? (Not your deletion, but the original one.)

Seriously -- if you folks are going to delete things, you should give the courtesy of an explanation to the author beforehand (or, at least, as soon as it's done). Simply wiping out someone's hard work is pretty "war-like", IMHO. If you want to encourage people to contribute, that's not the way to do it.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the exemption. :) The previous editor explained in his edit-summary that the article was not notable. So that was the explanation for the original deletion. Normally if something is deemed non-notable it gets swiftly deleted. But I can also see it from your point of view. Deleting someone's contributions, even for a valid reason, is not pleasant and can seem like a type of "war", but this being an encyclopedia, it is a necessary type of action, otherwise this place would be filled with articles of non-existing notability. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not show me what else to write about my country Kosovo OK wikipedia Kosovo is filled with lies by Serbs byee from Peninsula Illyrians Ps. Sorry for bad english ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBloodyAlboz05 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I won't. No problem with the English btw. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What to do when my sourced additions are removed, without a reply to my discussion on the talk page? --Behzat (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring is not the answer, especially when your edits are controversial and in a controversial topic under Arbcom sanctions. You should wait for someone to reply or take this to WP:DRN. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. There is a lot of knowledge I and fellow scholars have on this matter. Our edits CONSTANTLY get removed though, and unsourced and even worse, badly sourced information that is clearly non-sense is permitted to stay. When I had removed unsourced information the edit was reverted anyways. It seems like a different perspective than a certain one, or evidence that would indicate so, is not permitted. We have direct evidence from the Ottoman archives, as well as the French and British archives. Unfortunately the Armenian archives are not open for research, even though I personally don't speak Armenian anyways. The level of propaganda in the Armenian Genocide articles is simply too much. The fact that I defined the view as the Dasnak's view is just the other side of the spectrum of "scholarship", I know damn well the truth is somewhere in between. My apologies for that. --Behzat (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your effort to keep the article of Northern Cyprus clean and spotting violations that failed my eyes, and apologies for re-inserting the copyrighted material. If my rudimentary Greek is working, ευχαριστώ και ευχές για χαρά! --GGT (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't mention it GGT. It was not your fault. The text was inserted at some time by someone else and it was hard to spot due to misdirection of sources. Thank you for your kind words and for improving the article. Your Greek is not that bad btw. :) Saygılarımla ve Yeni Yılınız Kutlu Olsun! Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you check "Lkgokpk34" and "Parabellum 999"? Thanks Doc.--TerryAlex (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

All taken care of by Materialscientist. Thank you for letting me know TerryAlex. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Feels like that editor is back "UZI does it", "Colt Python does it" and "Anasapananas"--TerryAlex (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

MS has taken care of it :)--TerryAlex (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I was responding and we had an edit-conflict. MS is really fast. :) Btw, Anasapananas doesn't fit the obvious profile as yet. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, I found you a good book to read. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gosh. I think I have enough K-pop drama on wiki to need any book supplements. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)