User talk:Doc9871/Archive 5

Open Letter
To an admin (one of the most puzzling I have ever encountered here),. You have unceremoniously kicked me off your talk page (something most admins do not ever do) because you do not like what I have to say. So, I'll respond here instead. Your foul little edit summary is great example of why I personally think you are unfit to be an admin. To stretch "pal" into a "personal attack" is pathetically absurd. But calling another editor a "cunt" is okay and defensible? What a biased joke. I won't tell you to fuck off - very unprofessional. In fact, you can continue to post here whenever you want, and I will talk to you like an adult. And you can still thank me for edits on the project as well, as you did on this one. But if you ever feel tempted to block me for absolutely bullshit personal attacks like "pal", you will likely regret it. Thanks for your time, buddy. Doc  talk  02:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me for "butting in" here but I have just come across some of your exchanges regarding Eric Corbett and noticed that you have also been the recipient of some bullshit from an administrator who clearly doesn't have any insight into his or her very selective responses to incivil comments. You really have to wonder how some people ever become administrators. The administrator behaviour you are responding to above is another example of such hypocritical nonsense. Keep up the good fight against such rogue administrators! Anglicanus (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe it was you who were prattling on about me going everywhere complaining about you, but I see that you cannot distinguish between yourself and those who you think have somehow slighted or insulted you. It is i=on record that you called Eric a "patronising git" and just counter-attacked when I pulled you up about it. One really begins to wonder just how you can have the nerve to do that.  DDStretch    (talk)  05:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You can keep going on and on as much as you like about comments I've made but if you really think that you are somehow in a position to admonish other editors on matters of civility then you have a hell of a lot to learn. You are seriously compromised as an administrator by your own offensive comments and your inability to act in anything resembling a consistent manner. Anglicanus (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know you Anglicanus, but hello! DDStretch is likely using a simple tactic that is commonly used: attack the complainant. I truly buy none of the argument that Eric is ever baited: it's purely a defense mechanism argument. I'm not really aware of Eric ever kicking me off his talk page (by reverting me, especially), but it's been made clear (by others) that I may be borderline "harassing" him by posting there. Anyone can post here at anytime, provided you're not a vandal or sock. Doc   talk  08:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You have to wonder how some people become "priests". Eric   Corbett  17:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What a big sook you are Eric. You can dish it out but you can't take it! Anglicanus (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice language from a "priest". Eric   Corbett  17:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Still at it? Stop wasting your time. It's boring. If you think that I should be bothered for a moment by anything you have to say about me then you are completely mistaken. Anglicanus (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But it obviously is the case that you are! Otherwise why do you seem to take so much time up typing material about him! Insight is a wonderful thing, but pots and kettles are often unaware they are black.  DDStretch    (talk)  05:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't need lessons on blackness from pots. Anglicanus (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Another Genius sock bites the dust...
Good news, Doc! Favonian has managed to bag another sock by the 4th Power guy: User:Xmas Genius(Xth Power), who just went after Dave1185 among others. Please be sure to tag it accordingly when you're not busy. Thanks. -- 92.13.95.144 (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean the creep . Thanks for letting me know - it's always a choice between tagging and "denying recognition". Cheers :> Doc   talk  11:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. -- 92.13.95.144 (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I tagged the account to keep track of it. If the page is deleted in the spirit of DENY, I won't make a big deal about it. I favor keeping track of the accounts, but others see it differently. Cheers :> Doc   talk  11:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)



Diannaa (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --Diannaa (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Diannaa! Merry Christmas to you too! Doc   talk  01:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Richard Ramirez
Are you the editor who wrote Ramirez's cause of death? None of the sources in the article seem to support the claimed cause of death. I'm sure there's a better source out there.Hoops gza (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Public domain images
As you probably know, mug shots are public domain. When you uploaded Richard Ramirez's 1984 mug, it reminded me that we still do not have this: File:Jeffrey-dahmer.jpg on the Commons. Would you be able to upload this image to the Commons with the proper public domain tag (I struggle with this sort of thing)?Hoops gza (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Only mugshots from California, Florida and the Federal Government (FBI, Federal Bureau of Prisons, etc.) are really public domain by Wikipedia's standards, and only with the proper tags. At least that's how it is for now. In response to your question above, I don't think I wrote the part about the cause of death: it was something that was added shortly after his demise. If you can change it for the better, by all means do! Cheers :) Doc   talk  03:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify both of these points.Hoops gza (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem! Doc   talk  19:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * We don't make legal threats. That is policy, not WP:BITE. You should be ashamed of yourself. Doc   talk  08:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And don't you accuse me of trolling. I think you are not fit to be an admin, and it's not trolling to tell you that. You don't know your policy. Doc   talk  08:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you promise to read WP:DOLT I will let you off the hook, this time. Your behavior is eerily similar to the example Headhunter409. Jehochman Talk 08:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Who is Headhunter409? DOLT and BITE are essays. NLT is policy. If you think you're going to bypass policy for essays, it's just more fuel for your detractors. Doc   talk  08:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Read the essay. Thanks to your panic, this user was erroneously blocked 2 minutes after receiving a warning, per time stamps above.  That's unacceptable. The user needs a warning and time to comply.  I don't think there was a repeated legal threat after the warning. Jehochman Talk 08:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't open the thread, you know. I only knew that he should be blocked per NLT, and that admins who should have been watching had better things to do. First edit summary was a legal threat, several more followed. These were unambiguous threats per NLT. DOLT and BITE fall by the wayside. The user is ultimately non-notable, and they will not likely edit from that account again anyway since it was an SPA pushing an agenda. Your grasp of policy among admins is one of the most deficient I have seen, and I've met lots of admins in my many years here. You do not scare me in the least. So don't try to intimidate me as a non-admin that doesn't know his shit. Because I do. Doc   talk  08:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I moved the discussion to your talk page. If you want to level personal attacks and curse, you should not impose them on another user's talk page. Jehochman Talk 09:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, you're the one that called me a troll and not "sensible". I suppose those were not personal attacks? They were "polite"? Doc   talk  09:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Where did I call you a troll? Jehochman Talk 09:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Revert trolling" in the edit summary. Who does trolling besides... trolls? Is it a real stretch to say you dismissed me as a "troll"? Nope. Doc   talk  09:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Calling one edit trolling is not the same as the personal attacks you made against my reputation, without any sort of evidence.  Did you show riffs to illustrate your criticisms?  I did.  I pointed out a particular bad edit. Jehochman Talk 09:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your bad edit was unblocking the editor without any consensus whatsoever. You didn't even let consensus begin to form. If it had, it would most likely have been not to unblock the editor until the conditions of the policy were met. Not freaking essays, like you scolded the good admin who did his job with. I am hardly the first editor to question decisions such as this from you. Why did you unblock them improperly? By reversing the blocking admin without consensus to do so, and with no block appeal even put forth by the editor explaining the overt legal threats, you took the "law" into your own hands. And that really undermines the process that we all go by. Doc   talk  09:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, WP:DOLT isn't policy, but if it doesn't say "We could really stand to pause, and exercise discretion, before immediately escalating an imminent legal threat situation with heavyhanded threats and blocks", what does it say? —Steve Summit (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jehochman was right, you were wrong. Read WP:DOLT and please do not repeat your behaviour here again. --John (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * John: I certainly don't need your "adminly advice" here. You apologize for some of the rudest editors that have ever been here, and use your status as an admin to back your rude buddies up. To quote one of your faves: "Piss off." There are admins trusted by the majority of community members, who are unbiased in every case. I feel you're one of the most biased admins on this project. Not simply because you don't like me, and I've pissed off your pals. That's my opinion. You gonna block me for my opinion? You can continue to post here anytime you want.


 * I do, however, apologize to Jehochman for flying off the handle. We all get irritated here from time to time. Cheers. Doc   talk  06:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One last thing: I don't truly think any apology to an admin that I "rub the wrong way" is ever going to be accepted, or even really acknowledged. There's really just a handful of these admin-types that I have dealt with here. That's why I take issue with these admins. The admins who have taught me (and the community at large) the most here are definitely not the admins who can't ever admit fault. When I'm wrong or excessive in my comments, I admit it and later apologize. The admins I hold in contempt do not do this. Think about it. Doc   talk  07:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 20:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The #8 rationale is my favorite. Doc   talk  08:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Damn twinkle! forgot to ask it not to notify. The image has been removed as part of clean-up for a featured article nomination, so I expect it will not be re-added. Sorry for the duplicate notice! -- Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I really wish the Fair-Use image policy in regards to FA's would be more consistent. As I've pointed out before, virtually every FA we have on video games has at least one fair-use image, and sometimes multiple FU images of screenshots for those games. For some reason it is perfectly okay to have a FU image on an FA provided it's about a video game. Progress... Doc   talk  19:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I reinstated it again. There is no discussion area for proper deletion of this image, and I'm not about to see it swept under the rug. It will not be deleted by being orphaned: and consensus has had it here for quite some time. I will take exception to this image's orphaning from the article, as it is improper. Doc   talk  04:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough; noted. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mug shots of every sort have got to be more FU than a video game screenshot. The mug shot was taken by a public employee in the course of their duties to the taxpayers that employ them. Conversely, all video FU game screenshots are of legitimately copyrightable images from private entities. There really is no good reason to make this image any sort of sticking point to FA promotion. Doc   talk  08:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

 * Thanks :) Doc   talk  04:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hendrix in the army
Hey, thanks much; that was very nice of you! Do you think I should crop the image so that only Hendrix's face is visible, or do you think its better to show him with the others? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  03:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Either way is fine with me: if it were cropped though I wouldn't crop it too terribly much. Cheers :> Doc   talk  03:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've cropped out the other men's faces. Please revert if you think it was better the way it was. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Doc   talk  04:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Obo etc.
In regard to your comment, I cut their talk page access a minute (or second?) before your edit (I removed something extra disgusting as well). Thanks for translating and engaging. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem! Doc   talk  01:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

On Site ban
Thanks for the meaningful reply.. "Inayity", seems to be irritated, because he can't provide any backup for removing sourced content, as seen on this edit, further regarding my edits to be "Agenda", and look how he talks?:-

Talk:Persecution_of_Traditional_African_Religion

If you are interested in these subjects, kindly have 3rd opinion. (got opinion)Bladesmulti (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in what you two are arguing about - no offense to either of you. I'm more concerned with the "bigger picture" in this case. We block people for various reasons here, but site banning them requires a lot more reason to do so. Good luck to both of you. Doc   talk  11:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Where i can read more about Site ban? Bladesmulti (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BAN is where to start. WP:List of banned users will give an idea of who should be banned. And WP:BLOCK is a must-read. We can always indefinitely block a user and take away their talk page access. Once they start socking to evade their block(s), then it might be ban time. But even then, not always. It's never not complicated, right? ;) Doc   talk  11:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also may i know, if calling other's edit a "agenda" is personal attack? And also that I can defend myself If i want to, on The same noticeboard, from where you saw this incident. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No - not a clear personal attack. People could construe almost anything into a "personal attack" if given enough leeway. So we have WP:NPA. And yes, you can defend yourself on that noticeboard as you are not currently blocked. Doc   talk  11:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Since we agree that such ban is informal. Can you tell that it was even correct to open a "site ban" from start? Especially by non-admin. And it probably count further..? Bladesmulti (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It will count no further in whatever it is you are ultimately arguing about. No punishment will be levied on the editor who is proposing the site ban, if that's what you mean. Doc   talk  11:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:Image Policy
From the NFCC- "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." Therefore, if there is no clear consensus in favour of the use of non-free content, it should not be kept. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The complete opposite is true. Good thing I do my homework. This is unquestionably a 3rd pseudo-FfD, launched as soon as the last one closed with no consensus to delete the image. It is not a proper use of RfC, and there is no clear consensus to delete or remove the image. Per the policy, it usually stays. "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." (my emphasis) . The only thing abnormal about this case is the extraordinary amount of wasted attention being devoted to it. Your argument of deletion by default due to lack of consensus is completely incorrect. Expanding the FU rationales for both this image and the burning guitar image should be the next priority. Doc   talk  14:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hermann Hoefle
Hey Doc, could you please help me tag this image with the proper tag? I believe it to be public domain because it is a 1961 mug shot in Vienna, Austria of Nazi SS officer and Holocaust perpetrator Hermann Höfle. Here is the source of the image:.

I have uploaded the image to Wikipedia here: File:Hermann Julius Hoefle mug shot 1961.jpg.Hoops gza (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I can do it tonight when I get to a real computer. By the way, to display an image file without showing the whole thing, just type a colon right before the file name, as I did here. Makes things easier! Cheers :)  Doc   talk  05:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the image can be claimed to be PD as the copyright is claimed by the Yad Vashem Archives, but a Fair Use license can be created according to their terms here. This is a purely educational use of the image and I see no issue at all. Give me some time and I'll deal with it. Doc   talk  06:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Not only is it not PD, the fair use terms of the image's source make it impossible to put the image on the Commons, since Yad Vashem Archives forbids any potential commercial use of the image. Even if you could find another source, there's no Austrian public domain template that will cover this one. I really don't deal with uploading FU images and developing rationales for them anymore, so I don't think I can be of much help here. Good luck :) Doc   talk  09:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much for your help. I will try to keep these things in mind for the future.Hoops gza (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ramirez
You may wish to add something into Richard Ramirez's article from this source: .Hoops gza (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, something from that would be good to add to the woefully inadequate section on his lengthy trial. I'll look into it - thanks! Doc   talk  01:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks`s for maintaining penis patrol on my talk page last night (or this morning), much appreciated!.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem! Cheers :) Doc   talk  01:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The 108 IP...
...is Kumioko, whose done another one of his WP:DIVA exits, scrambled his account's password and started editing as multiple IPs. He's been doing this on and off for a while now. Sooner or later he'll grow dissatisfied with not getting the attention he wants as an IP, and he'll create a new account with "Kumioko" in the name, as he did with "Kumioko (renamed)" and (which wasn't actually a WP:CLEANSTART). His shtick is that he doesn't actually do any editing of the encyclopedia anymore, he travels around Wikipedia space as a self-appointed ombudsman complaining about this and that, claiming "admin abuse" whenever and wherever he can, and generally being an annoyance. BMK (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh - I see. Thanks for letting me know! So long as he's not getting his accounts blocked and then evading the blocks, I suppose I shouldn't be reverting whatever gripes he has. I am a bit familiar with that essay, on a side note. Cheers ;) Doc   talk  05:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, he was indef block or community banned (can't remember which) a while back, and got himself unbanned, which was, I think, a mistake, but he "retired" his account himself, so he's not evading a block -- although I do think it's unfair that editors using IPs are allowed to obscure their identities by using multiple IPs, which would be called sockpuppetry if an account holder did it. Still, he's not making much of an attempt to hide his identity. BMK (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit like gaming the system, especially if he's just going to run around whinging like he is with said IP instead of doing anything productive. An interesting case, for sure. Doc   talk  05:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Important photos to transfer to Wikimedia Commons
Hey Doc, since it appears to me that you know how to transfer files to the Commons, I thought that perhaps you could add this public domain image of a current FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive?


 * File:FBIRobertWilliamFisher.jpg

Thanks for any help you can provide.Hoops gza (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't used the Federal Bureau of Investigation template before for FBI files on the Commons - but it's interesting for images like this that were not originally taken by the FBI but later released by them into the PD. I'll see what I can do about transferring it to Commons with this template instead of PD-USGov-FBI, which is what I have used before. Doc   talk  02:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable in attempting to use the Federal Bureau of Investigation template on this file for the Commons, and I really can't use the PD-USGov-FBI template. But I think that it certainly complies with the Fair Use policy for our purposes here, and any challenge to its fair use can be handled as they come up. Cheers :) Doc   talk  06:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No hard feelings?
I want you to know that I'm sorry I was rude to you and others during this NFCC ordeal. I'm really going to work on my etiquette this year, and I hope we can move forward as friends. FTR, please don't feel that you need to avoid my talk page; you are absolutely welcome there! GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely no hard feelings! I only have them against bad-faith trolls and vandals, and certainly not prolific content creator editors like yourself. Sorry if I got testy as well - it happens. All is well, and Cheers :) Doc   talk  01:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh good; no worries then. Thanks, Doc! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI
Hi,

You 'reverted' my edit here,

Can we chat about why?

Thanks, 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure. WP:NOTFORUM. We don't close AN/I threads with rants about how admins "think they're Gods". The admin who took action closed the thread appropriately, and you are edit warring to put back in the inappropriate close. Doc   talk  06:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ted Bundy
Hello Doc9871, Just wanted you to know that I have reverted a load of unnecessary edits on the Ted Bundy article from a rather opinionated "editor",. I feel that editors have spent a great deal of time to make the page what it is without the need for these "edits". Hope to have your support. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like you guys are handling it. Thanks for the note! Doc   talk  02:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like a precocious teenager. I doubt that they know more about psychology than "people with degrees" at their tender age, and I disagree with the theoretical possibility of rehabilitating and releasing Hitler. I wouldn't get too harsh on them, however. We were all young and idealistic once. Doc   talk  03:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that a significant number of those of us who didn't flunk history were THAT young and idealistic once! Rehab and release Hitler?  They tried that with Napoleon, remember?  Well, okay -- he released himself . . . but basically I agree that don't bite the newbies applies even to idealistic newbies with an attitude. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Toronto article FAC
Hey, Doc. Hope all is well. I was wondering if you would like to be an FAC co-nom for Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix. Just let me know and I'll fill-out the paperwork. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  18:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, . I'd happily do it, but I do have a concern or two. Mainly, the FU image being deemed "inappropriate" for a FA for the same old reasons. I went through this once on this article with the FU image thing, and it left a slightly sour taste in my mouth. There also, of course, will probably be grumblings among the opposes that trying to promote it this soon after both the AfD and the GA is "pointy". So, yes, I will sign as co-nom; but I foresee potential strong opposition to it passing. Meh. Adding a third co-nom, one who is relatively neutral, would maybe help as well. Heck, I never mind a challenge. Keep me informed! Cheers :)  Doc   talk  04:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I stand by my assertion that the NFCC issues with the mug shot were remediated by the creation of a stand-alone article, but you're right that others might strongly disagree. On the other hand, we might be pleasantly surprised by how much support the community will offer for this article, which is pretty good, IMO. Anyway, here's a link to the FAC page: Featured article candidates/Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix/archive1, so please add your name as a co-nom and lets see what happens (Cullen will be a third co-nom)! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added your name. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool - thanks! Doc   talk  22:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

March 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Mike Zwerin. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. StAnselm (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Like I said, if you remove the referenced material from the article again, we are going to the edit-warring board. You are trying my patience. Doc   talk  00:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What do I do?
I have a question for you: An IP has repeatedly been making useless, unsourced changes to an article. Here is an example. He ignores the reverts and makes the same changes over and over. I've left multiple messages on his talk page; he ignores those too. Other editors have left similar messages (similarly ignored), because apparently he is doing the same thing with other articles. What would you do about this? Would you get an admin involved? I've never encountered a situation like this before. Thanks, DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A user that habitually ignores warnings and input from others is considered a disruptive editor based on the points 4 and 5 of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. They can be reported to WP:AIV if they keep it up. If they won't reference things or communicate with fellow editors, they can be blocked. Doc   talk  02:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in, but quite independently I saw the actions of this editor, looked at their editing history and decided to block anonymous editing from that IP address for one month (they had been previous blocked for 60 hours). The escalation is a little steep, but I can't see much evidence of any useful work done by this IP editor, or much let up in their disruption. They can always appeal if a block of this length affects them, which will at least have made them engage with people.  DDStretch    (talk)  02:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that works! Butt in anytime! Cheers :) Doc   talk  02:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for butting in!  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

He's baaaaack...
Good evening. It appears that our favorite troll is back, now calling himself. The diff is here (already reverted by ClueBot). You know more about dealing with these insects than I do -- what's the most expeditious method? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  01:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I sent it to AIV - should be blocked soon. I get my trolls mixed up: send me a list of other accounts this creep has used and I can put the pieces together. Doc   talk  02:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It was this guy, remember? In that iteration he was "TadBondy", before that it was "rapeisnotacrime", or some similar obscenity.  I can find a few more specific usernames if you need them. The admins know him well.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Other usernames included, (which I took as a personal compliment), , , , and .  There are almost certainly many others.  At least two admins, Gogo Dodo and Reaper Eternal, are quite familiar with him.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ahh, yes. That troll. Thanks for reminding me - I won't forget again. I'll do some homework and see if we can't figure out a master. Cheers :) Doc   talk  06:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing (but cannot prove, obviously) that this is the same troll. He likes to gloat about how nobody can stop him, so apparently he has some IT skills, and/or access to more sophisticated electronics than most of us. FWIW.  So happy we dodged today's snow-bullet.  Cheers,   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you mean - that would actually be, a seriously disgruntled person who has foolishly decided to declare all-out war on Wikipedia. I don't think our boy and he are the same - but I will look into it. No snow here, but it's a bit chilly. I'll take that over the 10 inches we were forecast for. Cheers :)  Doc   talk  04:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, my bad. I just thought it unlikely that there were two users that arrogant - but apparently anything is possible on a wiki.  First day of spring, only 16 days away!  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Florida mugshot
Greetings again, could you please slap the proper public domain tagging on this mugshot from the Florida DOC?: File:Gary Ray Bowles.jpg.Hoops gza (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That file needs to be transferred to the Commons, then deleted from here. It's easy, and I will do it as soon as I get to a non-mobile device. And I'll tell you step-by-step how to do this for similar Florida (or California, Federal, etc.) images. In the meantime make sure you peruse Copyright tags for images that really belong on Commons rather than having an unneeded FUR here. Doc   talk  05:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, here's what I did:
 * The first thing is to upload the image to Commons. The key part is using the PD-FLGov template: no FU templates are needed at all for FL or CA mugshots.
 * Then you want to switch out the images and delete the FU one. There are a few ways to do this. In this case I kept the same file name when transferring it to Commons and put the Now Commons template at the top of the old image. Now we wait for a faithful admin to delete the old one for the new.
 * Cheers :) Doc   talk  06:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help.Hoops gza (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,323 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 22:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! As I said above, others did all the fine work on the article. It was in a strange way that I was involved in the creation and promotion of the article; and the situation worked out better than I had imaged in every way. GabeMc is the creator of FA's, not me. It would be great to see this article as the TFA, I can tell you. Cheers :) Doc   talk  03:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Falling Barnstars!
Thanks! The others did all the fine work: I only helped get it off the ground in an inadvertent way. It turned out remarkably; and it was a learning experience as well. It's a great article that I'm proud to have had a small part in. Cheers :) Doc   talk  23:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My guess is that Hendrix would make a Parker Fly sing -- as he did with every other guitar he touched. And then he would go back to his trusty Stratocaster.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  12:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Gauntlet
You have an opinion on this user. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&oldid=600562612#Unblock_request You clearly expressed that. ] Decline his unblock if you feel that strongly. Perhaps engage him/her, talk to them. Ping me on my talk if you'd like to have them unblocked, and if you can make the case to me, I'll do so. You can decline unblocks as a non-admin, and I'm watching the process. I'll help you if things get out of hand. Feel free to hit me up for help. SQL Query me! 07:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As it reads now, per WP:Blocking policy: "Any user may comment on block reviews, however only administrators may resolve the request (either declining or unblocking)." No admin is likely to unlock the user, but only an admin can do it according to policy. Doc   talk  07:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You haven't so much as commented at the user's talk page. SQL Query me!  07:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * He's a waste of time. No gauntlet for me: too many toes stepped on, and not worth the headache. I like being a NCO a lot better anyway. More freedom! Cheers :> Doc   talk  07:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That is your decision to make. I tried to give you the opportunity to help yourself. SQL Query me!  07:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate it! Thanks, SQL! Doc   talk  08:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, Dennis! This means a lot coming from one of the most universally respected admins on the site. The only "enemies" I have here are, in no particular order: vandals, trolls, spammers, POV-pushers; and especially the sockers that commit all of the above sins. The "hopelessly incompetent" sort of editor I don't have contempt for, but also don't want here. We must be retaining the good editors when they are really here to act in good faith and improve the place. Thanks again! Doc   talk  05:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This page semi-protected for a week
Ask me or any other admin if you want it removed earlier. I was guessing this was the best solution and your preferred method to deal with the issue. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  15:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I definitely was going to remove the stuff; I was waiting to see what he was going to do next, and then logged off for the night. His very last edit says it all, destroying his pathetic "little brother" excuse. I assume it's a "he" after reading this recent BBC article, which you must read if you haven't already. Cheers :) Doc   talk  21:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

TLDR re block
Re this, and I think maybe you were on the TLDR talkpage? As noted there, TLDR was used as the rationale for a two-day block which totally blocked me from my own talkpage and email....forTLDR??Skookum1 (talk)
 * I've never edited the TLDR talkpage. I don't know how TLDR in itself is a justification for a block, quite honestly. It could be stretched into disruptive editing, I guess.


 * I should also reiterate that while I certainly don't want to see you site banned, I do clearly see why others are complaining about you. I don't think they are just simply wrong across the board, or that it's all on them with only you being blameless. So, while I will continue to oppose a site ban on you, I stress that you need to look more carefully and introspectively at why any editor would really want you banned in the first place. Doc   talk  02:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the mistaken ID, there's another "doc" user there. As for imposing a block on me like was done last week on TLDR grounds alone, that's abuse and contrary to what that essay is about.  Blocking me for any period of time will suspend very constructive activities and alienate me from Wikipedia as a place more obsessed with its own protocols than actually serious about writing a proper encyclopedia.  This is a political campaign IMO, as I have said on that ANI re its partisan and one-sided nature, and is disruptive and meant to obstruct and halt my activities overcoming the abuse of the NCL guideline that the core group there, which includes Usyvdi, who is not guiltless in the AGF/NPA department herself, and is entirely disruptive and a WP:CFWT.  The proper thing from here is to WP:DISENGAGE but instead U. keeps on carping and carping about me, even saying my criticisms of what are going on are NPA and "punishable by death", more or less.Skookum1 (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Re this "you need to look more carefully and introspectively at why any editor would really want you banned in the first place." I already know that in U's and Kwami's and JorisV's case - I'm in their way and my overturning of their misapplication of WP:NCL (which badly needs to be brought into line with TITLE/Precision/Conciseness and NCET and more) has their collective nose out of joint; failing to block me at RMs the ANI was launched, IMO, simply to get rid of me. As for "why any [other] editor [than them] want [me] banned", TLDR is the usual rant/whine but it's not even supposed to be applied re discussions of any kind, though BHG, Fayenatic, Bushranger and others have done so.....including derailing CfDs and RMs by harrassing me over it.  Others in that ANI such as Dicklyon and Agne have been vociferous opponents in the past, now coming forward to say "yes, burn him, he's a witch". Other editors such as Carrite and CambridgeBayWeather do not want me banned and a are critical of those who do.  That that one comment about mental problems was allowed to stand is yet another NPA against me of the worst kind; personality attack and imputations of mental illness (which Kwami has also done).Skookum1 (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)1|talk]])
 * The thing with TLDR is that other users not only don't want to read "walls of text", their attention span is instantly turned off by seeing one. It's best to keep it short and concise. The simpler, the better. Disengaging on both sides is the surest way to avoid conflict. The first to engage after that can be seen as the "aggressor". I cannot get into looking at the history between you and your detractors. They are looking for sanctions, and all I can do is point out how sanctioning usually goes. Doc   talk  06:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * yeah I know full well how a lynch mob works, and a kangaroo court too (I was explaining those terms to my Russian ESL client just two days ago). Montanabw had Uyvsdi disengage following a contretemps re the use of category redirects......which I did, and have avoided any topics in her topic area; three weeks later she very aggressively waded into BC categories by picking a very controversial one to re-create contrary to consensus and then stuck her finger in her cheek saying "I want to see what other editors have to say"; if I'd known that freelance re-creating of CFD'd category titles was in the offing, I would have created Category:Skwxwu7mesh myself instead of being so foolish as to not realize that procedure/consensus is not about facts, but based on biases and ungrounded opinions; Category:Squamish should be the category for the town/district of Squamish, as with Category:Nanaimo, Category:Lillooet, and others of that kind; she knows nothing about BC nor even about t he Skwxwu7mesh people.  IMO that action of hers was very much the actions of an aggressor; who wanted "other editors" as ignorant of the facts as she is to 'have their way'.  BHG, by the way, closed one of the Squamish discussions on the basis of TLDR...taht's a violation of guidelines but as I've learned, admins never eat their own...and will usually find someone else to eat instead.Skookum1 (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In case you missed it on the ANI, I'll quote this bit of Mark Twain I found this morning, during my ESL lesson: 'Nuff said.Skookum1 (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue, but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.
 * Again, I won't even begin to look at any content disputes between you and others. That's something you all are going to have to work out amongst yourselves, maybe through WP:DR. Consider me a "referee" here. I don't care who wins, just that the game is played by the rules. Good luck, and Cheers :) Doc   talk  07:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the game obviously hasn't been being played by the rules, not at RMs and CfDs, and not at the ANI. Serious reform is needed so that such processes cannot be abused for personal vendettas, which is how I would sum up all of what has being going on.  And people unqualified to vote on content issues (which includes TITLE considerations) should simply not be voting, or their votes discounted, especially when unsubstantiated or misquoting/abusing guidelines.....and people not qualified in the topic area should not be the ones closing such discussions, unless they are prepared to read the evidence and are not closing on reasons of personal bias against the proponent, which is clearly what BHG did in the cases mentioned; Bella Bella and Fort Fraser and others similarly "unclosed" will be revisited by WPCANADA, where I've been told I should have avoided RMs and just asked a Canadian admin to move them.Skookum1 (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the specifics of the dispute here. And I am not interested in making great reforms to the system. All systems are inherently flawed and need constant adjustment. I generally know how things work here, operate within the environment provided for us, and deal with others working in the same system the best that I can. I can agree with users that I respect about one thing, and then completely oppose them on something else. That includes both The Bushranger and BHG.


 * There are many hackneyed clichés I could cite as advice for your current situation. "Rise above it." "Take the high road." "Be the better man." "Kill 'em with kindness." "Turn the other cheek." "Forgive your enemies." And, perhaps most importantly: "Silence is golden". Cheers :) Doc   talk  08:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to, but keep on seeing unfair and AGF comments that need responding to....and keep on being confronted by oppositionist votes and closes on procedures I launch. If I'm banned, others have indicated to me they will revisit the items in question, but I've learned better than to bother with procedure where uninformed and hostile participants are free to screw around with the procedure as they please.  As CambridgeBayWeather has said many times about attempts to shut down discussions while demanding discussions they never held in the first place and now are stonewalling such discussions being groundless as the issues addressed by the proposal are already in the guidelines; though not in the one whose defenders are attacking me over overriding as inadequate and, frankly, incomptently and dishonestly written.  Biased and contra-guideline actions by admins is not going to to go away; but it sure drives people away....Skookum1 (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Life is not fair. Things like this remind of that like a sledgehammer to the midsection. Wikipedia is also not fair, nor is it fun. But it is nothing more than a wiki. Deal with it the best you can. Doc   talk  10:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Confidential
Just so you know, I appreciate your encouragement for another editor to close that ANI. (I have no desire to keep open or have stay open.) It seems this is a lot of fun for some people, however, and must explain it. (The abuse-train must continue chugging, else, apparently, it will hurt the economy [popcorn sales].) As long as it stays open I'm subject to continued mud-slinging, and, that ain't right, but I guess you & I are the only ones who think so. Great place. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm an "old salt" when it comes to commenting at AN/I. It's a crazy courthouse, and I only jump in when I feel like it. It's not really such a bad place unless you get dragged there by someone. Just keep doing the positive things you do and don't worry about the thread anymore. Cheers :) Doc   talk  06:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be good admin material. (Been around awhile, don't take yourself too seriously, flexible [open-minded], intelligent, thoughtful, with good view for the overall of the [health and objectives of the] encyclopeia [like User:NE Ent]. [Unlike crass, asshole-ish, POV-oriented {biased}, destructive admins like User:The Bushranger ... just for an abstract compare.] You even have a Dennis-Brown barnstar! [I forgive you for that, though.]) Anyway, I think you'd make a good admin. Even though you are a prick sometimes (which I haven't experienced personally). So what gives? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see I'm not the only one that has that opinion. BTW titling this "Confidential" is like putting a big flashing sign on it.Skookum1 (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence! RfA is not a gauntlet I'm willing to deal with. You'd be surprised how many enemies would come out of the woodwork if I did. *(Simpsons reference alert)* "Surprise witnesses, each more surprising than the last." And the dreaded RfA "questions"? Ugh. I'm okay with being a senior sergeant. We need them to liaison the common admin with the common editor ;) Cheers Doc   talk  11:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You know, that ain't a bad way to think about it. I, too, shudder whenever anyone mentions my name and "admin" in the same sentence -- but there's a legitimate role for unofficial liaisons.  I'm only a junior sergeant, myself -- but I'm good with that.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You're not kidding. I got talked into it and I still occasionally wonder what I got myself into! Based on our limited interactions I think you'd make a good one, FWIW.

Opened SPI
I think we might have discovered a new nest of socks by a pre-existing socker. I've opened it at Sockpuppet investigations/GagsGagsGags, if you're curious to see how it goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I will be watching! I'll chime in later today with a clear head. The Easter Basket/egg hunt is a few (too short) hours away. Joy ;P Cheers :) Doc   talk  09:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Richard Ramirez
Hey, Doc. Do you know Ramirez's age when he attempted to rape someone at the Holiday Inn? That would make a nice addition.Hoops gza (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * On page 221 of the Carlo source it mentions 1975, and on page 223 it begins describing his job at the motel. It doesn't directly give his age, but he would have been 15 or possibly 16 at the time. I'll see if I can find a source that mentions his age directly. Cheers :) Doc   talk  17:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Upvote
I've been spending too much time on Reddit lately, because after going through the wall of text on ANI all I wanted to do was click the upvote button for your comment here. Very nice! Tex (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That's a Texas-sized signature, no doubt! Cheers ;) Doc   talk  13:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Richard Ramirez
hiya Doc: in an edit summary, you recently made a personal attack on a recently deceased subject, which may be disturbing to his living family members. in this edit summary, you state:"Such an awful creature. Rot in Hell, Ramirez"Edit summaries are to describe changes made in the edit, not for personal commentary. Also, we mustn't forget Matthew 7:1. Peace be with you. :) 173.85.207.230 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right. I didn't think it through before I typed in that case. If I could strike it I would. Cheers :) Doc   talk  19:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's Déjà vu all over again
What's up Doc? How you doing? I've been gone for a while, but I'm back now. Had several significant events in my personal life since last October. Some good, some bad. They collectively made me loose interest in the time I was spending here. Then in February it got crazy at work, but things have got back to something close to normalcy now.

Funny how some things change and some stay the same. The recent edits at the Desperado page look all too familiar...but that's a long form IP and apparently Geolocate doesn't work on those? Where is that IP originating? Is it him, the one you know of whom I speak? -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  05:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey! Glad to know you're back! Real life is so much more important than this place. I'm happy to hear from you again!


 * I hope it's not our boy, but I did have the same thought. He's been so quiet recently on my radar that I temporarily forgot about him. It doesn't mean he'll give up, of course! These types of addresses that can't be easily traced is bad news when it comes to trolls. It makes it so much more difficult to exclude IP's in an investigation. Not much we can do about it, though. I'll keep my eyes peeled in the meantime! Cheers :) Doc   talk  08:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well it didn't take long before he showed up my radar. You might like this one. Looks like he's still on his genre warrior kick that he evolved into seven or eight months ago, but the diff shows the very first edit summary I have seen him use in what now, seven years, whatever "W" means. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  05:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. It definitely looks to be him. I guess it's time to start hunting him again. Cheers Doc   talk  00:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like the other LTA I've been monitoring has also had a reemergence. And I thought both of them had given up. What is it with these people? Cheers Doc   talk  02:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Much obliged! Cheers :) Doc   talk  03:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't WP great!?
A grotesque little witch hunt this has become. Isn't WP great!? One gets to make unaccountable and officious statements at the low end of the totem pole in a jurisprudential venue without backing up a whit, and walk away as smug as a bug in a rug! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My interactions with DP go back to a time that was before you even got here. Oh, and we've had our differences; he even threatened to block me once (not digging that diff up). But I got over it. And while he's certainly not perfect, I really don't think he should be desysopped as "the only option".


 * I put very little stake in your opinion of what a "suitable" admin is. You really seem to not like any of them; and some of those that you find "unfit" are, in reality, some of the most well-respected admins on the site.


 * If there is a "low end" on the totem pole here, I'm further from that end than you are. I therefore have arguably more right to comment there than yourself. Cheers Doc   talk  07:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * some of the most well-respected admins on the site. By whom? Admin buddies? Those they've nom'd at RfA? Admin wannabees? And even if your answer were miraculously, "the community of editors", duh, I tend to think for myself, not "follow the crowd" which you apparently think is some sort of virtue (odd, seeing the overall environment is basically corrupt & dysfunctional here). About your generalizations about what I think, you don't know, but you like to insult. Why don't you go join Kudpung's anti "anti-admin brigade" campaign (if you haven't already). Your "witch-hunt" name-call clearly belongs on the bottom of the pyramid, so I have no idea your basis for claiming any superiority re anything I presented at the case page. And as far as your long-standing acquaintance w/ DP, what has that got to do whether he meets minimum standards at WP:ADMINACCT or not?! What's your favorite cheese, Swiss!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are you here? What result are you looking for, other than to aggravate (grief) our host, Doc9871? Jehochman Talk 16:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The wall of "inspirational quotes" on the user page says it all. Looking to right great wrongs and change things in a really big way. Good luck with that. Doc   talk  09:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong. (If I did that, or was here for that, I'd be an "activist", and I'm no activist nor have I ever been here or in any other context. Plus the "wrongs" you refer to are multitudinal, and mostly observations of the dysfunctions in WP, and always by others not me. Plus many are just interesting, paradoxical, or simply I thought they were funny. The list is for my own purposes for relaxation & humor, and also to feel good about being part of an org where there are many insightful and intelligent persons.) Though, I have mentioned idea for cure for all of what ails WP, even at Jimbo's Talk -- a restructuring engineered by the people who know both the problems & their solutions -- the site's top 10 content creators !voted by the community. (But that's not activism either, it's just saying what after awhile is obvious to me is the best [and perhaps only] way out of the dysfunctions and to an efficiently positive future re what the WP is supposed to be -- a set of quality articles.) You continually attack me as being negative Doc, but all the negative things I have to say about admins are based on first-hand experiences with those individuals, and how they treated me personally, I don't form opinions outside of my own experience with them, and I happen to trust my own experiences. And that includes with you, which experiences have been mixed, but at some point tilted downward, especially after a series of attempted smears against me on noticeboards, like in your labelling mischaracterizations above. I came here to in my own way attempt to disuade you from making bottom-of-the-pyramid insults where your nose doesn't belong if that is the kind of contribution you intend to make in a place like DP Arbcom case. (Of what intelligent value is your hissing & moaning?!) But see that's the culture here at WP that you are apparently proud of and participate in and defend and propagate (your values), so, we really have nothing in common then, do we. (If & when I make insults I make sure first I can back them up. After having holes shot into your statements and accuses, you just go on making more. The environment here is corrupt & dysfunctional, i.e. your perfect playground. [Not mine. I disown it. And for good reason.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your continued whinging at the Panda thing is just revolting. No evidence, just a bunch of hateful rhetoric. You would absolutely never stand any sort of chance of adminship on this site with your toxic little attitude. You are about to be one of the select few I have ever banned from my talk page. You're a smart guy; but you're not someone I want picking admins around here. Piss off now. Doc   talk  06:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Zack?
I see your point and I really can't disagree, but is there any benefit to society as a whole in playing straight man to him? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which society you mean. I cannot help but see humor in the wiki-society, and in "real life". The best straight man ever was Bud Abbott, BTW. Doc   talk  13:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just think he'd be best ignored for a week (he can't stray), then decide which way to go. Otherwise it's merely wasting the time of real editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I think enough time has been wasted on him already, though. The only reason I got involved was because I saw all the good advice wasted on him. Actually, I know it's not truly "wasted" advice at all. Just advice wasted on that editor. Doc   talk  14:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He trusts no one. An easy call. Doc   talk  14:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko
I can't convince other editors to even facilitate an unbanning request. You also should understand that there's really not even a remote chance that such a request would succeed in unbanning you anyway. On top of that, you've already sworn yourself to be "Public Enemy #1" unless your demands are met.

We don't, as a community, give in to editors who demand such things. I am not an admin. But I know the "endgame" when I see it. And you are simply just not going to win here. Move on from Wikipedia. If you think you will somehow "win", you are sorely mistaken. Why waste your time here anymore if it's such a shithole? Doc  talk  05:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe Walsh
Please leave specific comments on the Joe Walsh article. It has been revised since the first nomination for "good article." Thank you. Pkeets (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Highbeam account?
Hi, I'm trying to save an article that is about to be deleted for lack of reliable sources. There are several reliable sources on the HighBeam teaser page but I don't want to pay $200 to get past it. I understand you have an account. Could you search for "Vince Molinaro" and add the cites to Vince Molinaro and comments at the debate Thanks. 71.174.67.162 (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't used HighBeam in some time. I found it to be somewhat useful, but not useful enough. I'm not sure I remember my password for it at this point. I probably should give up my account (if it's still active) to someone who can utilize it better than I if account space is limited. Cheers :) Doc   talk  01:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

ACS Junior
Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles on non-notable primary schools should not exist. A redirect is the best option at hand. Notability is not established, and hence a redirect here is sensible. Very rarely do pri. school articles get the go. Cheers! ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 10:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your DYK nominations alone are troubling. I really don't think you "get it". Perhaps you think you've languished under a penalty, and by waiting it out and saying "peace and love", everyone will simply forget why you are under restrictions. You seem to think it's a routine formality to ask for your restrictions to be removed, almost as if they were never needed. And then you repeat the exact same behavior with that pork article. I am wary of editors like you, Bonkers, and skeptical of your ability to reform your ways. Good luck. Doc   talk  10:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a separate point, and if you bother to read the article, I do not see anything wrong with it. In fact, I think it is well-referenced... Albeit the fact that, yes, it was my mistake for forgetting about the mainspace edit ban still being evoked. Pray tell, why are you so upset about it? I really do not wish to ruffle any more feathers. --☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 10:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean, who does that? I've never seen someone create an article and then nominate a factoid from it for a DYK that quickly. Really? I'm not upset, Bonkers. Peace. Doc   talk  10:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did that before I was banned. If it is eligible and I feel it is good enough, why not? I usually do not need five days to churn out a 1500 char long article. Half an hour tops will do. It is preference and a matter of efficiency. Besides, having not edited for half a year, surely you should understand the urge to do things "that quickly". But so long as it is not controversial, I think that will do. It is, after all, controversial articles which led me to hot water. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 11:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Dirty linen
Can I display my own negative information? I have a fetish for dirty laundry (my own), and the adding of blocking admins was for clarity only. In any case thanks 4 the heads up, I have removed the admin names but retained the block log display. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You know why I removed it, naturally. Listing editors as some "magnanimous" folks who've just so happened to also have blocked you serves no purpose other than to cast a poor light on them. No one actually cares who blocked you anyway, you know. Doc   talk  12:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I care. :) They helped me see where I erred. Is it alright, I ask, to re-add everything except for the admin names? ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert you the second time. I don't see a major problem so long as you don't start making a list of names. But I'm just one editor. And it's a bad idea all around, I will tell you. Doc   talk  12:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We have all but this lifetime, shimmering like the heart of Neptune, and melting like a vat of cream crackers in the fiery Sun. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're a poet and you don't even know it. Doc   talk  12:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Informal note
Hey, I notice that you have HighBeam access and you seem to have a few topicons. That being said, if you are interested, I've created. No reply to this message is necessary (and I won't see it unless you ping me), just wanted to let you know it was available. Happy editing! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 00:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't have been changed
It is fairly well-established that the name is "Eagles" and not "The Eagles". If it is supposed to be correct it should say "Eagles" and not "The Eagles". Does Led Zeppelin's page say "The Led Zeppelin"? Does their site say "Eagles" or "The Eagles"? http://eaglesband.com/. Redsox9175 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would direct your attention to this as well as this. Nobody (and I mean nobody) ever writes about the band without adding a lowercase "the" in front of the name, and the band members all refer to their band as "the Eagles". You will never hear any band member say, for instance, "My time in Eagles...", because they would instead say, "My time in the Eagles..." Doc   talk  22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Sean Hannity
Ok, I have a citation I can use to prove his "pro-Israel/anti-Islam" position, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/sean-hannity-yousef-munayyer-rant_n_5620231.html, does this work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farishayek (talk • contribs) 09:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. Not even close. Doc   talk  09:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC you may be interested in
Previously, you participated in an informal discussion at Talk:Eagles (band) regarding genres in the infobox. Due to a recent dispute, a formal RFC has been opened on the matter. Please feel free to comment as you see fit. -- Jayron  32  23:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Reconsider?
Hi Doc, I know you're familiar with the background and everything. I'm asking if you might have a think about the situation and perhaps reconsider your views - I know you logged it as a "comment" but it will probably be interpreted as an "Oppose". I have demonstrated that I can be productive without being involved in my previous "gnoming" in areas that the socks will object to. Since I am the only active editor under the Topic Ban, it is very much personal (and as an aside - also points to the number of socks that operated in this space previously...) I won't flog a dead horse if your mind is made up, but if there's anything you want to ask (or any assurances you believe might be useful), fire ahead. Thank you. -- HighKing ++ 19:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * is a bit concerning to me. It's firmly within in the topic ban area (even though you didn't make an edit that removed the term). I don't understand the urgency to get the ban lifted. If it is removed, that means you are free to add or remove the term again. But we all know what happens when you start removing the term. I'm not going to steadfastly oppose lifting the ban, but I cannot support removing it either (consider my position at AN/I "Neutral", I guess). When I say "nothing personal" I mean that I don't dislike you or anything like that. Doc   talk  02:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Doc. Yes, that Talk Page comment/query is firmly within the topic ban area. Cailil made it clear that discussion on Talk pages was fine and the Topic Ban also makes that point clear. The sock only seems to react to actual edits so little danger of disruption. I'm not going to seek out "British Isles" gnoming (or any other type of gnoming) in future. Perhaps if (and only if) in the course of my editing I come across something, I intend to do as I've done above - post a question or make a comment on the Talk Page. I have about the same appetite as the community (approaching zero) for these stupid edit wars. I've shown I can work fine under the Topic Ban. Realistically I agree there isn't an urgency to lift the ban, but it very unfair to keep the ban in place on the basis of what a sock might do in the future...which seems to be the argument you're making! -- HighKing ++ 13:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid have to concur with Chillum's position . If there were no restriction on the BI area, I can't say I'm confident that there would be no further removal of the term by you. It caused disruption in the past, and it will cause disruption again if the ban is lifted. Even if you swear up and down that you won't return to the behavior that led to the topic ban, rescinding the ban would mean that you could do it, and freely at that. And there is no doubt in my mind that if you were start doing that again, more socking by those who watch your edits and do not want the BI term removed would begin anew. I, as one individual editor, can't have much influence on the AN/I discussion (and I don't think I should add anymore to that thread). Good luck to you. Doc   talk  01:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think a proposal of a trial or "probationary" period suspending the topic ban would be more realistic than a complete removal of the ban, FWIW. If no disruption occurs as a result of the ban being lifted during that specified amount of time (like 6 months minimum), we go from there. Jus' sayin'. Doc   talk  01:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just saw this now. I've no problem with a trial or "probationary" period of some sort. 6 months sounds about right. Good idea actually. Also Snowded has said he'd "mentor/monitor" my edits (I think he means any "British Isles" edits) - that's probably also a good idea *if* I come across something I'd like to change. Do you want to make that proposal? Might be better coming from a "neutral".
 * Hi Doc, I've made the proposal at AN/I. Hopefully its something you might consider supporting. -- HighKing ++ 18:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Doc, just a ping to see if you've had any more thoughts since I made the proposal at AN/I. -- HighKing ++ 16:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that an editor has posted a succinct list of questions for you at the AN/I thread. You're going to have to convince a ton of folks, and the early assessment on achieving consensus to overturn the ban is grim. I still can't go any stronger than neutral at this time, and I doubt my influence would be much at all. I will continue to reserve final judgement for now. I would very carefully consider and answer each of the questions and see how people respond. Doc   talk  03:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

List of banned users MfD
Hi Doc. Thanks for taking the time to comment on option 1 of the proposals for change at the list of banned users. It's clear that there's sufficient support that it will not be SNOW closed, so I've listed it at MfD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). I thought it appropriate to keep you informed. Worm TT(talk ) 09:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. Doc   talk  10:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Go have a cup of tea
Thanks for the compliment ("cut from the same cloth"). But I dunno anything about user Merridew.

What you see as your mission on the WP escapes me, but I'd say for sure, you are a light weight. And you can go ahead and post anything you want to WP:DIVA, I'm not taking up the tacky implicit challenge to tussle. (That and other inherent name-calls like WP:DICK, are inherently against a pillar, duh.)

Posting a name-calling personal attack on my user talk, then immediately reverting, is pretty tacky and cowardly and gaming the system. (You aren't fully responsible for comments you've reverted, right? Yeah.) If you are going to play games like that then consider this a request to never post there again.

I don't know the technical markup issue that wrecked the TOC, I was trying to determine same when you corrected it. Your derogatory editsum prompted my responding eitsum. (Again, duh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fully aware of what I post here. I really do think you are a bit of a diva, and that you waste our time with your toxic viewpoint. I appreciated your acknowledgement of my "Carlin" stuff (that you later erased out of spite for not agreeing with you across the board). Disgruntled malcontents need to either get on board or fuck off. We are not all here to cater to the elitism of "content creation" (which apparently is immune from the civility policy?). Doc   talk  10:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * And "consider this a request to never post there again" is usually a hallmark of the immature, uncompromisable editor. You can post here anytime you want, any time of the day, and I will respond in due course. Doc   talk  11:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you're just an irritant who's shown they aren't worth my time/attention. (Deal with it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again: your time and attention is not the same as the community's time and attention. I have no blocks, IBANS, or anything like that. Keep blaming those around you rather than your own actions. Cheers. Doc   talk  11:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are fucking talking about. (Branching to "community's time and attention", "blaming those around you", inexplicably.) Your posting a personal attack on my Talk, with your bait to compete with you at WP:DIVA (I've reverted you in the past at WP:DIVA, you knew that, so your current challenge was clearly an attempt to bait), then immediately reverting, shows your productivity here and developed skill to harass and game the system. (So the fact you have gained no sanctions, is not impressive to me in any way. I do not respect what many admins have done or not done here, in any regard.) You are the one who's initiated hosilities with me, not vice versa, so do grow some balls and deal with the flak you so overwhelmingly deserve. (So, who's whining!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You will not like to hear what you don't want to hear. Me neither. But I don't much care if you respect me, as I'm not here for you. What you consider harassment and "gaming the system" from me is, to others, simply not. You won't hear what I have to say: but that doesn't mean I won't say it! Open up an AN/I thread on me for harassment. Please! Doc   talk  11:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't open threads on ANI, after my one early experience doing. (Anyone who knows me knows that. I consider it a cesspool of irresponsibility. [So, you welcome me into the pig pen mud. Gee thanks.]) Like I said, you behave as in irritant and a under-the-wire harasser, and I have no idea of your mission on WP, but anyone is able to post anything they want here. You don't have my full respect, I've made that clear, so please give it a rest. (I have not yet banned you from my user Talk, because you at least have a sense of humor. [The only thing one can to some degree control in this place, is who cannot post to user Talk. And that even is problematic on this backward, hostile & abusive dysfunctional website.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * An "under-the-wire harasser"? Is that like an "agitator"? I ask questions here, and if that makes me a "harasser", I'm proud to be one. Sanctions would follow... ya think? Doc   talk  11:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You made a personal attack on my user Talk, then immediately reverted. You tried to bait me at WP:DIVA, already explained. Ditto the fact you consider yourself civil via lack of sanctions. Ditto you like to divide people into WP:Battleground camps. So go soak your head. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I recall you baited me at DIVA, claiming a false PA against one of your idols. Yep. Doc   talk  12:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Bad-faith mischaracterization/no bait. Your edit was obvious slam against a specific editor. That's not what essay space is for -- making coat-rack personal attacks. (You like to re-hash this, because you have no other retort to above and like to get in scrappy cat-fights to make yourself feel better!? I have no interest to discourse w/ you further. And take a look at the length of this thread! I opened it because of your going to my user Talk emotionally to do a tit-for-tat because you couldn't take your lumps of my editsum in response to your uncalled-for edisum. Never should have continued beyond my reply editsum, but you decided to pursue a cat-fight because your ego was rebuffed. You are the one who decided to get all sarcastic and insulting after my innocent markup error which any user could have made, specifying instead of  . That simple error, which screwed up the TOC inadvertently and innocently, was the basis for your insults, and extension into this cat-fight. You could have put your ego appropriately where the sun doesn't shine after that, instead of actively furthering hostilities and baiting. You will not like to hear what you don't want to hear. Me neither. You see incivility in me, where there was none, but not in yourself, where was blatant and unprovoked. You should learn to shut up, and not start and extend disputes that are unnecessary. Please don't challenge me further as I have no wish to continue in this vain w/ you. Happy editing. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your MfD
Hey, it looks like you had some trouble filing your MfD you were discussing opening last night. I made a request at WP:AN for someone who could fix it up; I'd have done it myself, but I haven't filed one of these things in years, and I'd probably just muck it up too. Hope you don't mind... -- Jayron  32  11:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was a major contributor to 2 LTA reports, and I'd like to think that our efforts had an effect on the activities of the jokers we got wise to. By tracking and identifying what could have been an army of vandals to the "layperson", it was narrowed down quite considerably. But now we should give them all a free pass, lest we hurt their feelings. This way, it'll be a brand new surprise each and every time! Ignorance is bliss. No enemies lists of any kind sounds great.


 * I'm a bit disgusted with this place right now, so I think I will take a Wikibreak. I don't care anymore what happens at the MfD. Seeya. Doc   talk  22:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not know...
...that you were a Bad Lip Reading fan.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Doc9871&diff=453183211&oldid=445832716] Always nice to run across someone who appreciates the genius of BLR. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's pretty good stuff. Doc   talk  06:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Richard Ramirez
Something to consider adding, he once said in court something along the lines that "there is evil in all of us" or "we are all inherently evil" or something along those lines. Good luck finding it though. - Hoops gza (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The actual quote was "Lucifer dwells in us all" -- said it in court, after being sentenced to death -- widely quoted, easily found -- typical arch-demon rationalization. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What he said. There's also this, which you might have been thinking of, from a prison interview (right in the beginning of the clip). "We are all evil, in some form or another. Are we not?" That would be a "cop-out" on this guy's part. and not really especially worthy of inclusion. Doc   talk  06:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

He might be a good subject to start a Wikiquote article on. - Hoops gza (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, might -- or might not. Ramirez never said anything insightful, or worth remembering, IMHO.  Evil people always say that everyone is a little bit like them, which some people (Mother Teresa?) would dispute, and even if true, doesn't excuse their behavior.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether someone has said something insightful is irrelevant. Many serial killers have quotes on Wikiquote. Satanists are not that common, so expressing Ramirez's views might have value in a certain sense despite the vast majority of people not agreeing with them. For example, did the Nazis say much of insight? - Hoops gza (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What "sense" might that be? The Nazis had cogent beliefs (however abhorrent), and a method to their madness.  This guy was just nuts; he wasn't a "satanist" to any deeper extent than its usefulness to him in rationalizing his rampage.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ridgway
Well I would have thought that link was informative. It is hardly what one would consider trivia related to the case, and it does provide chronological updates on any developments regarding the case. (The home page may lead one to think the link is a memorial, but looking at the navigation menu confirms otherwise.) Still, never mind. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There's not even a credited author for the website.
 * "With that, let me tell you a bit about who I am. As I previously stated, I am not a detective. I also do not work in the news media. I am from the Seattle area and have an interest in true crime, specifically, the Green River killer case. At the time of the killings, I had yet to be born and I hadn’t even heard of the case until Gary Ridgway’s arrest in 2001. After his arrest, I begun researching the case."
 * No name, no credentials. Just someone who created a "fan site". This is not a reliable source. Cheers :> Doc   talk  02:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This did come to my mind to a degree, but the forum upon the external links available upon the GA Jack the Ripper site led me to believe it may seep through as acceptable. As I said, never mind. ;) --Kieronoldham (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very exclusionary on EL's unless they are vetted. No fan sites allowed. Anybody can become an EL with a website. Cheers :) Doc   talk  08:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your post to my talk page
Sorry, I had to dash out to make a doctor's appointment, luckily nearby. You've had two other replies I see. I don't know why the editor is editing logged out, but please take the word of those of us are are both very experienced and know this situation. Good faith, you know? And if it wasn't meant to be abuse, I'm sorry but it looked like it. We're trying hard to get this editor to return as they've played a vital role in the past. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I get told to "drop the stick". Not only by you, but by admins who are buddies with banned users... who are on the list of banned users that no longer exists! What ridiculous politics are now at play for the LTA list? Can I add a recent offender who is banned by the community to this list? Do I dare? Doc   talk  10:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Buddies with banned users? Certainly not me. But no, banned doesn't mean long term abuse. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Moi
Miss you TERRIBLY!!!! SEE: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Wikipedia_Summer_of_Monuments&action=edit&section=new https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Wikipedia_Summer_of_Monuments&action=edit&section=new HELP!! Still fighting cancer,no longer bald, RED!!! too sick to write much but never fear, still sarcastic and feisty! ;-)BBL Love ya  — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  03:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey!!! Miss you too!!! Did you hear the terrible news about Susan/Crohnie? I know you watch her page, but I don't know if you've seen it recently. Very sad about that. Stay strong!!! I'm here for you. Much love! Doc   talk  06:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Too sick to start another section. About Susan, my stanchion. I didn't know, I cried :-( 3 more chemos, a while to get well, and you are stuck with me.I love you  — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  04:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Another Ihardlythinkso thread opened
Since you were involved in closing the original thread involving the topic ban for this user, I wanted to inform you of another thread that was opened here: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that relates to it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Doc   talk  07:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted
nice try. Unfortunately, the discussion was closed. I appreciate that you may now be feeling very silly, so if you want to talk things through maybe you and Caden can discuss things over a glass of milk and a Farley's rusk. Cassianto talk 08:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Have yourself a good wank. Thanks for stopping by! Doc   talk  08:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

See my page
I cannot deal with this. I CANNOT even comprehend much of what was said. Apparently I goofed. Serious case of Chemo brain, aphasia etc. I give up for now. W/O Susan I don't know what I will ever do Love  — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> •  Talk  •  02:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I miss Susan too. It totally sucks. Bad. Chin up, dear. I will watch the threads. Get well - nothing is more important than that. Doc   talk  10:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Death
My son was murdered October 29. Google Shaun Diamond. I am decimated. I may have lost my mind. ONE more chemo but who cares? Love you.22:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#075;">DocOfSoc</b> • Talk  •


 * That is just utterly horrifying. I am so, so sorry for your loss. I cannot imagine what you are going through. E-mail me when you can. Much love Doc   talk  03:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply to "Clarification"
I'm replying to "Clarification," which you posted on my talk page at 06:35, 3 December 2014.

As I said to you once before, I understand your distress that everything is not in order, i.e., that I'm not following the rules, as you reasonably say. In fact, I recall telling you, at one point, that I would refrain from Wikipedia editing, simply so you would not be distressed. As time went by, I decided that had been an unnecessary pledge; and as you see, I reneged.

In an effort to eliminate your own distress, you say, on my talk page, that you "have less respect for the rules with every encounter like this." I imagine it pained you to say that, and I myself would say that the rules, in general, are quite good, as I'm sure you, too, think they are. Even so, this situation involving you and me has arisen because the rules are, in my view, not quite complete. They left me no satisfactory way—satisfactory to me, that is—of dealing with the contretemps that culminated in the block. (Without getting into detail, I'll tell you the matter prompted me to send Wikipedia a letter, which, unsurprisingly, went unanswered.)

Since the blocking of my account, my Wikipedia editing—which has been intermittent—has been done through whatever IP has been assigned to me by Verizon, my internet service provider. The IP seems to change from time to time; and in fact, on the talk page of the George Carlin article, you'll see "Big Nothing," a thread I initiated in 2011, when I had an IP different from the one I have now. (In the course of the said thread, I identified myself, by name, as a blocked editor.) Never have I created or used a sock puppet account.173.49.197.125 (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The block was a very long time ago, and it was a reaction to an editor who was community banned. I have never had anything against you or your editing - it was always just a question of the block. I will not address you in a harsh or negative manner again, and I have no intention of interfering with your editing here. Sorry for any hard feelings! Cheers Doc   talk  22:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes—I understood that the block was your concern. Because you owe me no apology, I decline the one you've tendered.  There are no hard feelings.  I'm reminded of an anecdote in an interview of Ernest Lehman, who wrote the movie North by Northwest.  During the filming of Somebody Up There Likes Me, which Lehman also scripted, Paul Newman, who had the lead role, of Rocky Graziano, told Lehman there was a line he couldn't say.  Lehman, who thought there was nothing wrong with the line, said to Newman something like, "Just say it."  Newman repeated that he couldn't say it, and Lehman, who was getting exasperated, as Newman and he went back and forth, was finally shouting something like, "What do you mean you can't say it?  Just say it."  I'm recounting that from memory; I won't try to see if I can find it on the internet.  My point is that you and I were in a similar situation.  You were saying, in effect, "What's the problem?  Just withdraw the threat."173.49.197.125 (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes for a happy holiday season

 * Ditto! Thanks Diannaa! Doc   talk  06:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto
Don't add fuel to the fire please: post elsewhere if you really have to, and don't rell me to fuck off again - I can guarantee I know many more naughty words than you do and I really don't want to have to show off by using them all. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not revert my comments. You have no business doing it. This isn't some closed society, and you are no censor. Stop it. Doc   talk  09:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but it is my talk so now I'm asking you to fuck off.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   09:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, count those words from me too Doc, call it grave dancing, baiting or whatever, just stop it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How funny it is that you take issue with an editor telling another to "fuck off" when you pick your spots as you do. Absurd. Doc   talk  09:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, generally when I've seen you do it is superfluous, incendiary or wrong. Or all three. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What's eventually going to bust up the "anti-civility/content creator" cabal is politically incorrect bullshit like Giano spews. "Autistic-like obsession" talk is going to offend a whole bunch of people. You'll see. Cheers. Doc   talk  06:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the was to call him out on his blatant ignorance and mischaracterization of autism in the way that he did. Shame on all of you for backing him up by reverting me and disallowing the conversation. He's a very rude editor by choice, and I was speaking in his language. You should not be defending such ignorance, whether from an esteemed content creator or a newbie.  Doc   talk  07:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly a better word was "obsessional" - it was used in an adjectival sense. I also didn't see that comment of yours and that was not the one I reverted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You I quite like and respect. You are very solid. I can't say the same for the others in this thread (especially in matters of "diplomacy"). The civility issue is boiling to a head in general. I hope you all see where the way to proceed lies. Doc   talk  08:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal
I've removed comments from my talk page; this isn't because I disagree with them, I simply prefer a conversation between folks who are not me occur somewhere than doesn't turn the top of my page red every few minutes. NE Ent 12:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's your talk page. It's better to archive stuff, in general, but I'm not offended if you want to remove my comments on your talk page. Cheers. Doc   talk  12:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmies
I think I'd rather you didn't mention me explicitly at a discussion I obviously can't participate in. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am subject to no sort of interaction ban with you. I certainly can, and will, mention you in discussions here on Wikipedia. If you are tempted to violate your IBAN with another user: don't look at me. Doc   talk  10:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer no red rags to bulls. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC) P.S. I asked nicely. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

April 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

June 10: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

I got to turn in now
I've asked for help with a range block at ANI. Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Logging off, I have to work tomorrow. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're the best! Much love :> Doc   talk  05:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much!
Doc9871, Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I enjoyed and was relieved by your "Meh" comment in an edit summary on my talk page. In that moment, I was gearing up to defend myself in another round from BMK. I was fixing to defensively revert your reimposition of the template when I saw that you did it yourself. I was very relieved and I laughed out loud at the "Meh". I was relieved because I've been feeling under siege and I haven't been looking forward to a new round of defense. One less person I have to fight (and especially the way you framed it with the "Meh") makes a big difference in my outlook. Thank you. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of service. Cheers. Doc   talk  09:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Oddly I like pigs - intelligent, sociable and clean animals, but it's unlikely the vandal knew any of this. Thanks for the reversions on the two pages. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! There are editors, and there are the "others". We may disagree on some things, but we are never enemies. Only the others are. Cheers :> Doc   talk  10:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

PS
The actor with the collapsed ibox: I don' care what kind of infobox he has, but I am concerned about the treatment of a user who - AGF, no? - may be a first-time editor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You know how it is over there. All we can do is maintain the compromise to ensure that the current infobox is not removed again. It could be a brand-new user, and it could be a sock. Tough call at this point. Either way, the compromise should remain in place to avoid more needless drama. Cheers, Gerda! Doc   talk  07:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I must be unclear: I don't care about the kind of infobox. I also don't care if the user is new or not, only that a user raising a concern should be treated factually. We can't expect a new user to know about the background of a conflict that I fail to understand myself. They just see the unusual looks of a page, compared to others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's something we're going to have to live with, at least on this article. There is too much strong opposition to having a conventional infobox here. It's been rehashed so many times, with many edit wars and such. The best solution we have at present is the current compromise consensus. If new users are treated poorly on this issue, there is little you or I can do about it. Doc   talk  08:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Letting things settle down
I've removed the comment. Let's not post anything that could start things up again. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but... (sigh). Doc   talk  06:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ta SetI Kmt
Thanks. So far as I could understand him, white = racist. Can't see a long term future for that editor. Doug Weller (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! Cheers Doc   talk  05:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI
I have bone-deep burn scars across the fingers of my left hand, and this leads to frequent typos. Spell check does not work in all browsers on all devices. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. My bad - I apologize for being a dick about the typos. Cheers Doc   talk  04:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, you're not the first and you won't be the last. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"No explanation"
Hi Doc. Would you be able to expand on this for me? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards supporting it after further analysis. Will expound on it soon. Doc   talk  06:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. I mean to return with a little more care.  I was just wondering whether there was a joke that I didn't get.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I will get back to it. It's more complicated than I first thought. Cheers :) Doc   talk  07:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert - I went WAY farther than intended there. :) -Philippe  (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh no problem - we've all done it. Cheers ;> Doc   talk  07:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ...
Well ... that was ... fun?!--Cahk (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They should appoint a few "night watch" admins to take care of that stuff in the off hours. It's visible 24 hours a day, after all. Thank you for being vigilant! Cheers Doc   talk  10:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sven 70
Hi Doc9871. I hope you are well. Another success: It looks like Sven 70 has finally stopped editing, at least from the ranges I have been watching. There's been no activity since April. If you see him pop up anywhere, let me know. In the meantime I am going to remove this case from my to do list. -- Diannaa (talk)
 * Hello! Hope you are well too! Last I saw of him was in June as, and he wound up getting banned by the community after I reported him. Let's hope he stays away, right? Cheers! Doc   talk  14:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

DS
Are you aware that the Trump article is under discretionary sanctions? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

By my count you are at 5RR on that article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a sock of a blocked user. 3RR does not apply. Who is minding the store? How is this garbage from a SPA on an agenda even allowed to stand? Doc   talk  18:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, but if it is a sock there is WP:SPI for that. There is also WP:AN/I. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not have to allow socks to edit here before we file a SPI or run to AN/I. Thankfully. Doc   talk  18:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LjL (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOT3RR point #3, I was reverting the sock of a blocked user. Doc   talk  18:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Even though, I think it's less disruptive to report and wait than to flood the page history with reverts. Someone else had to report (in two places) instead... LjL (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I normally don't revert like that but the article is just lousy with socks. And I bet this one is related to the other recent visitors. Doc   talk  19:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Proven tags on socks
Hi Doc, the "proven" tags are reserved for when the Checkusers have confirmed the accounts. Admissions made by socks can not always be taken at face value. They often lie and try to associate with different masters. Unless there are CU results that I don't know about somewhere those would be "suspected" even if we feel 99% sure. I've re-tagged most but left the ones that didn't say proven.

Any response from Susan's family? — Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will ask her son about it and have been meaning to - I am able to directly contact him now but did not bring up the specific issue when I established communication because I didn't want to overwhelm him. Thanks for the reminder! Doc   talk  02:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Doc   talk  01:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

MarnetteD&#124;Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Doc9871 as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Doc   talk  01:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings

 * Thanks! Doc   talk  01:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Yr
We're both Carlin fans. And I presume Trump too. (So what's diff? You stick labels on people, dumbed-down WP memes. Carlin did for humor, not RL. He respected individuals as complex. He was really smart.) Peace. IHTS (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Peace to you as well, and Happy new year! Doc   talk  12:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump political positions
Hi. I think that my edit (Many media outlets have questioned whether Trump is fascist.) deserves explanation as to why it was removed. As I stated in my edit revert, the line that I added is factual and sourced. I only think it is appropriate for other editors to explain why the line was removed as opposed to just removing it twice without explanation. Thank you. Dr. M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.132.55 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Saturday February 6 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Don't remove talk page comments
You may very well be right about that "new user". But it's not up to you to decide they are a sock or to delete their comments. Deleting talk page comments, except for PROVEN socks or blocked trolls, is a no-no. Don't do it again. Maybe the Powers That Be will eventually determine they are a sock, but in the meantime, don't accuse them of things; everybody should just evaluate them and their comments, and respond accordingly. This is not a threat; more like a friendly caution. --MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Here's the thing about trolls and socks: They usually get caught and blocked, or else ignored. But sometimes they take other people down with them. If you accuse them of being socks, or aggressively go after their edits, it can result in collateral damage. So stay cool, give them WP:ROPE, and see what happens. That's my advice. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , he just got trolled by some nazi... who aint blocked yet though <sub style="color:green;>Muffled  <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  17:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. Thanks for removing it. I'm just trying to help Doc stay out of trouble; the temptation to over-react to this kind of thing is great. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good news: the sock was quickly recognized and blocked. Now we can remove the troll edits; in fact I will do it myself. It has all been removed already. The system does work; it worked unusually fast in this case. Meanwhile I blocked the IP troll. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, let the system rock, and you with it 👌 <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  18:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There really wasn't even the slightest doubt that it was a sock of a blocked user. I'm pretty good at figuring out who's a newbie and who's not after being here for a few years. I appreciate the warning though! Cheers :> Doc   talk  00:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
To enforce an arbitration decision and for making a "potentially contentious edit" without obtaining the required "firm consensus" beforehand, in violation of the sanctions already in effect on the page Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC) <p style="line-height: 90%;"> Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
 * Thanks for blocking the other editor as well - seems fair. Somewhat. I have zero faith that the article is unbiased against the subject. It's off my watchlist. It's a "C" class dumping ground that ain't going to get any better. This place is going to favor a liberal spin over a conservative one, much like the mainstream media does. Millions upon millions of people in this country disagree with this way of running things, but it's pointless to attempt to make things neutral. The fix is in. Put every little thing Trump says in it. Hey: we've got 5 more months til the election. This article is going to be much more bloated with negative stuff. Thanks fer stoppin' by! Doc   talk  03:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your accusation, request for disclosure and non-contribution to the Trump page
You have accused me of using multiple accounts without the slightest evidence. If you have any evidence that that is the case, please let me know. Otherwise please shut up and learn some manners. Gaas99 (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Piss off. I'll gather enough evidence to shut you down as a WP:SPA sock if I find that evidence. And you'll be the very last to know, trust me. Doc   talk  07:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This edit right here sums up your level of editing prowess to me. Sources? None. "North American Governments"? Hmm. Not encyclopedic without sources. Doc   talk  08:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I really don't care about your opinion of my editing prowess but, Einstein, if you had looked at the talk pages you would have noticed that I was correcting the information from reference 43, which referred to Canadian government action. But obviously you don't care and your BS is just a knee jerk reaction to anything anti-Trump. Gaas99 (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * By assuming I'm against anything "anti-Trump", I suppose you think I'm "pro-Trump". You are incorrect. I'm "anti-anti-Trump", if you will. You are clearly "anti-Trump", which means you leave your NPOV at the door when you edit the article. I have very little patience for dealing with your ilk. Doc   talk  06:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I safely assume that you have nothing of substance to say about the Vietnam section of the Trump article and are interested in only ad-hominem attacks?Gaas99 (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If by nothing "of substance" you mean agreeing with you instead of Anthingyouwant, then, yes, I have nothing of substance to say there. I don't comment on every thread there, FYI. Doc   talk  05:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:ThiefOfBagdad
Thank you for posting to his talk page. He is new here yet is making drastic changes at Donald Trump with zero discussion on the talk page. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

On Policy, Again
Ah,. We simply are not on the same level. Capiche? You actually took a lot of time, with your thumb up your ass, to lecture me on how I violated user page policy... on a user page that the user himself had no problem with!!! You, "Sir", are definitely not someone I would ever take policy tips from! Have a wonderful day... Doc  talk  13:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Point #2" really displays your ignorance quite nicely. So... free speech applies here, correct? Nope. Defamation torts, Supreme Court decisions, blah blah blah. You're not nearly informed enough to lecture me. Doc   talk  13:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One more thing. When falsely accusing me of a "COI" (I really don't think you even know what it means, seriously...) you said something about "the years that you've felt the need to self identify as a Republican on your userpage"... Are you contending that having a political userbox indicates a COI? If so: does this also apply for Democratic userboxes? Doc   talk  13:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Michael Hardy is reminded that:
 * 2) Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
 * 3) All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
 * 4) Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
 * 5) MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
 * 6) The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard