User talk:DoctorJoeE/Archive 1

New Image
Hello, DoctorJoeE! I've found another good PD image of Bundy here and I plan to upload it on the Commons per, very soon. As you should know by now, I am very much in favor of including images to illustrate articles, especially when they are PD images. Another one I am really trying to get is this one, taken in Pensacola after he grew the handlebar mustache and still had the fake mole on his cheek. Unfortunately, the full image with the placard has yet to surface on Google Images, so I will have to wait. Anyway, my question is one only of placement in the article. The appropriate section chronologically is this one, which already has two images in it, both very appropriate to the section. Three images in one section may seem like a lot, but nothing is going to dissuade me from uploading the image and putting it somewhere in the article. How do you think we should handle this? Doc  talk  22:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's dated August 1979, which means it's his post-Chi Omega-sentencing mugshot. Since we already have his post-Leach-sentencing mugshot in the following section, some might argue that it's overkill -- but I'm all for adding as many photos as possible, to illustrate the point made in the article that he looked different in virtually every photo ever taken of him. So I'll back you all the way, but don't be surprised if we get some pushback. As to where to put it, I agree that the two photos already in that section should stay (since I'm the one who put them in) -- we could put the new one at the top of the following section, and move the post-Leach mugshot to the middle of that section. That's about the only option I can think of that wouldn't clutter the "Florida trials" section. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears! DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  12:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

✅. Feel free to tweak things if you want: I struggled over the caption for the new image and settled on that one. Cheers :> Doc   talk  12:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks great as is. I added the Florida State Archives credit, just to maintain consistency. DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  16:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's cool, but I didn't actually get it from the archives, and I'm not sure if it's in there. It has to be public domain per the rationale of the template, the the archives credits are only for those in the archives that need that credit for the creative commons license. Anyway, I'm on the road and on an iPhone and can't sign in on my account on it. I've tried many times, and it won't log me in. I guarantee you that it is me :> Cheers 98.175.158.161 (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW: you were "closely paraphrased" and you might not have even known it. "He received three death sentences in two separate trials for three known Florida murders,..." from the LATimes, August 5, 2011. Per this diff of yours, the "three known" part entered the fray. Coincidence? Possibly. Doc   talk'  05:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Coincidence? If so, I should be winning the MegaMillions jackpot any day now. That's fascinating - thanks for pointing it out.  What interests me is that an LA Times reporter would use Wikipedia for background data, given that schizoid rag's propensity for ridiculing WP's "lack of reliability." On the bright side, I guess we're rising a bit in the eyes of the journalism world! As for the Archives credit, feel free to remove it if you don't think it belongs there. Since it's an official state photo I just assumed it came out of the Archives - and it must have, originally, even though that's not where you found it. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  00:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was pleasantly surprised to see the blatant rip-off, considering how many lousy mirrors I see ripping off the same content you worked hard on. The LA Times owes you a check for that one, methinks ;> Ah, volunteerism. Doc   talk  03:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved a part of the section, and in my research have found that it actually needs some rewriting. I'll do it, don't worry ;> According to the sources aside from Keppel, both girls were actually 14, not 15 as it currently says. Devine disappeared on Nov. 25, 1973; but Brenda Joy Baker didn't disappear until May 27, 1974. Bundy was in Seattle on May 27 according to the FBI timeline, of course. I never know whether to bring these things up here or on the talk page. Heh! Doc  talk  06:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks fine - I'm pretty sure Rule also said they were 15, but if that's incorrect, I suppose it should be changed. I won't hold my breath waiting for that LA Times check, BTW. :-) DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  17:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

✅. I had to rewrite it a little, but I think you'll find it acceptable. I'm working on that last little part I warned you about, the two girls in New Jersey. I have two good articles to work with so far: the one I showed you on the talk page and especially this one from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Particularly tantalizing is this: "Investigator Kinzer said that two New Jersey detectives tried to interview Bundy in 1988 about the Somers Point slayings but that the convict would not discuss the crimes. Kinzer said he did find Bundy's aunt in Philadelphia, who told him that her nephew could not have gone to the Jersey Shore that weekend because he had been in an auto accident and had a cast on his leg. There was no record of the accident, Kinzer said." Once I do add it, I think the "other possible victims" section will be complete. I agree there's no need to include a mention of the library stabbing murder. Cheers... Doc  talk  20:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting! The "cast on his leg" thing is especially fascinating, since we both know that Ted was fond of faking injuries with casts & arm slings -- I wonder if that was a fake cast that he used to bait the 2 girls? Pure speculation, of course, but still...with no documentation to back up the car accident story...and Ted did tell Keppel that he would never discuss murders that were "too close to home"...  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  12:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Still working on the exact wording, and will request your tweaking once I publish it. It will be well-sourced, you can be assured. As I research more, I find more and more crazy stuff. From this article at least (and other sources I've seen), we know Bundy's daughter's birth name was "Rosa". Check this quote out from Hagmaier from a good article I'm trying to incorporate somewhere (page G1 is where it is, as it may go to page G6): "He was worried that somewhere in (Rosa's) life she would meet a Ted Bundy, and that's why he told me, 'You and others need to identify these people...'" Wow. Doc   talk  08:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice find. So he had no guilt about the women he killed, but he was worried that his own daughter might be victimized someday by someone like him. Interesting. The quote from Hagmaier about finding some victims in clothing they had never worn before has not been reported elsewhere, to my knowledge - everybody else says they were found naked. I may add that sentence in the pathology section. Again, good find! DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  04:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have an hour and 12 minutes to spare sometime, this is one of the best documentaries I've seen, though it's not all about Ted. Ressler looks so young! The Kemper stuff is very intersesting, as he was quite rare in his candidness and honesty for this sort of ghoul. Worth a watch. Cheers... Doc   talk  06:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

archiving
I've configured your archive to work properly now. Since 2010, the bot has been sending your threads to dev/null (trash can). If there are threads which are important to you, they can be recovered from the page history. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that. I suspected something was amiss, but didn't know exactly how to go about finding the problem, let alone fixing it.  So thanks.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  19:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, the bot only recognizes threads with a trailing datestamp. At present, it sees 4 threads on this page. You can manually archive those without datestamps or add a datestamp yourself. ⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> 19:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a few datestamps to kickstart the bot. We should see results tomorrow. <font face="High Tower Text" size="1px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> 19:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hack Wilson Help
I'm on vacation and don't have time to edit the Hack Wilson article to give it GA status. Any help is appreciated.


 * I'd be happy to help -- but I did some (I thought) significant rewriting of that article a year ago -- does that disqualify me as a reviewer? DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  13:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I didn't explain thoroughly. The article has already been reviewed. It just needs someone to act on the review posted on the Hack Wilson Talk page. I'm afraid time may have expired though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orsoni (talk • contribs) 12:49, 16 May 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Oops - my bad, I misread. I'll do it tonight; the reviewer said "about a week", and it's still on "hold" status, so I don't think it's too late.  I think the article is grossly overlinked, though - and the reviewer is calling for more links, not less!  (Is "pneumonia" really that obscure?)  But I suppose that can be discussed.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  20:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Bundy Revert
I'm not sure why you reverted edit. Per the sources, the car was recovered very shortly after it was found abandoned, on an on-ramp to the parkway. The bodies were not found until three days later: the way it reads now leads the reader to erroneously construe that the bodies were found near a car that was abandoned in the woods for three days. Please self-revert unless you want readers to think this. It was a very simple clarification solution that did not need reversion. Cheers... Doc  talk  05:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me explain -- I reverted it for multiple reasons: it was awkward English ("near where", etc.); the car WAS abandoned; the bodies were found 3 days after the car was found (I left in the "3 days"); I don't conclude from that sentence that the car was abandoned for 3 days, but does it really matter? Is it really worth a convoluted sentence to clarify a trivial point in a one-sentence reference to a case that Bundy may not even be responsible for?  However, since you feel the distinction is important, let me see if I can come up with a suitable compromise.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  14:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This is what I changed, because it does not even indicate that the car and the bodies were found separately. Or at different times. But your solution is fine! I certainly wouldn't have changed it if I thought it didn't matter, and of course there is value in clarifying it. There was a large search for the girls, and they wound up being found near where the car had been. What I wrote initially got altered into what was confusing me (and the facts). Not a big deal, and Cheers :> Doc   talk  04:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Susan Davis and Elizabeth Perry, both 19, were stabbed to death on May 30, 1969 near Somers Point, New Jersey.The vacationing college friends' bodies—one nude, one fully clothed—were found near their abandoned car beside the Garden State Parkway three days later."

I'm even more confused by your most recent addition the article. The lengthy quote of what the DES co-worker told Michaud is nearly useless: who cares what they think with their "storefront" metaphor? Come on! It's flowery and opinionated hearsay from a non-expert. Now, most things that I add to the article, I expect to be "improved" by you... somewhat. I expect it, regardless of what it is. I actually feel somewhat honored when you leave my additions untouched, FYI. I do plan on adding a sentence on how he was very nearly caught between the Chi Omega crimes and the Leach murder, just to let you know. Cheers... Doc  talk  08:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's great -- go for it. I've considered adding something about that encounter with the Tallahassee cop a couple of times myself. I added the quote to make the ASPD definition a little less vague, a little more comprehensible to lay readers who by and large think Bundy was "crazy."  It's not an opinion, it's a perceptive observation from someone who knew him.  But I suppose I can shorten it if you feel it's too lengthy.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  14:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hack Wilson GA
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for editorial efforts that helped Hack Wilson become a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. I have more to add, as time allows, which I hope will help us get it to FA. DoctorJoeE  talk to me!  01:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * GL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Santa Rosa Hitchhiker Murders
Hi DoctorJoeE, I have again deleted the apparently unreferenced addition to the Ted Bundy suspected victims.

This unknown contributor seems intent on making this a edit war, without any proper references. The only website mentioned states that Bundy was ruled-out of the enquiry.

If this carries on, should we consider asking for a block on this anonymous contributor?

Good talking with you again. Best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First we need to warn him at least twice -- I'll warn him now. All the best, DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  16:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Bob Sheppard Citation
Hi -

You undid by legacy update to Sheppard article. I did provide a citation. How better to cite this email:

Michael:

Thank you very much for your note! That is indeed Bob Shepherd on The Baseball Experience. Thank you for your continued support of the Hall of Fame! Sincerely, Craig Muder Director of Communications National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum

JMOprof (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, a personal communication citation is considered original research by WP rules (WP:OR). You might ask Mr. Muder if there is a published reference to this that could be used as a legitimate citation.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  16:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, my first thought was if you email Craig, too, it won't be original. &#9786; My second thought was Carl Beane, and I ended reusing a source already cited. Thanks JMOprof (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverting 3 edits with the explanation source? (using twinkle)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_denial&diff=501553474&oldid=501488652 I am not sure if you made a mistake with your automated tool, but you reverted my 3 edits with the explanation "Source?". Since the quotation had a source, and it is easy to find that Chomsky is a professor, and that 12 million Germans were expelled, I do not understand what you meant. May I suggest that in future you make better use of the edit summary, and perhaps spend more time investigating before reverting other peoples hard work.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 93.96.148.42, before you altered it, the quote read: "One revives the dead in order the better to strike the living." You changed that quote to: "The various components of this ideological discourse can be easily discerned: German nationalism, neo-Nazism, anticommunism, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. These ingredients are to be found in differing forms and proportions, depending on the author (it is clear, for example, that German nationalism plays no direct role in the work of the French pacifist Paul Rassinier." Sort of a big difference, no? Where is your source per WP:V and WP:RS for that change to the quote? Doc   talk  05:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The source- which i think meets WP:V and WP:RS was clearly linked to in the footnote. The quote comes from the text - did you check it? And why did you revert my two other edits without any mention.  Please check WP:FIES for guidance on edit summaries. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * May I ask why this argument is taking place on my talk page? If you two have a dispute, please take it to another venue.  As for me, when I am "reverting other people's hard work" I do spend more time investigating -- but no hard work was involved here, I think you'll agree.  And "it is easy to find that Chomsky is a professor" does not constitute a reliable source, for future reference.  I am also curious as to why you do not have a WP account, and continue to edit anonymously; I understand that that is your prerogative (although I have voted against allowing it in the past), but does that mean we would not want to know who you are, were you to tell us?  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  13:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry - had not realised was not talking to you. Chomsky has been a professor for 55 years, is now double a professor, is in the first line of [] - but sure, say I need to give sources for it- doesn't explain why you reverted my sourced edit too. If I correctly understand you, you do not respect editing by IPs, so revert their work without checking it, or giving a proper explanation, and like to denigrate their efforts. I certainly worked far harder in making constructive edits than you did with your triple revert without a proper edit summary. For a discussion on IP editing read my talk page.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right, I do not check the work of IP editors as carefully as I do regular editors, on the assumption that IP edits will be unsourced opinions or outright "drive-by" vandalism -- and that's because 99.9% of the time, they are. This is particularly true with the Holocaust Denial and Protocols articles.  Editors have a finite amount of time, as I'm sure you know, and we tend to make assumptions when experience has taught us that such assumptions are correct in an overwhelming majority of cases. You could resolve this issue, and save both yourself and your fellow editors lots of time and aggravation, by opening a WP account.  Why you have not done this is answered neither here nor, so far as I could tell, on your talk page.


 * And now, let's consider the 3 edits that I reverted -- you scold me for my "improper edit summary" -- yet the first of those 3 edits has the summary "Professor Noam Chomsky", as if that were some sort of explanation of what you were doing, and why. The second edit summary is a portion of the quote you added, which in no way explains why you completely changed the quote, and still doesn't. With no explanation of what you were doing, and no additional sourcing, this appeared to be a random anonymous change.  The third edit had no edit summary at all, and was unsourced except for a link to another article with a disputed neutrality tag, again suggesting opinion as opposed to constructive editing.  So I don't think my edit summary was improper at all -- I was questioning the sources of your changes, which were not clear at all, either from your edits or your edit summaries (such as they were).


 * So let's each take our share of the blame for this misunderstanding, shall we? And once again, while I realize that nothing prohibits you from editing from an IP address -- although if I were anointed Emperor Jimmy II tomorrow, my first imperial act would be to make that so -- I cannot see why you continue to put up with the aggravation of doing it, when it is such a simple problem to solve, for you and everyone else. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  16:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ) May i sugget that "sources" at least would have been more appropriate- I got the distinct impression that you were opposed to my edits because I was an IP, and could not even explain your negativity. The summary "Professor Noam Chomsky" seemed the best way of explaining that addition- but if you were unaware that he is a professor, i apologise. With regard to changing the quote- the reference was to a long document, and 4 words were cited- i thought my choice of words better, but people shouldn't be selecting quotes from primary sources for inclusion in wikipedia. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, you could easily solve the problem of other editors (and it's obviously not just me) neglecting to give you the benefit of the doubt by opening an account, and I hope you will consider doing that, for your sake as well as ours. We should probably conduct any further conversation about the content of that specific article on the talk page of that article rather than here.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  14:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverting
If you are taking a stand, please don't just revert but read the discussion and state your opinion there. The evidence given for XI is not enough in my opinion. On the contrary, the discussion so far has rather made me more convinced I am right than I was before. Lexein is talking about some consensus which has been agreed upon before but has so far not been able to point to it. The Wikipedia Reference Desk for science on the other hand seems to give 11 as the right name for the mission. Taylor Strand (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Longstanding editorial consensus occurred. The Ref Desk erred, missing the NASA emblazoning at the Public Affairs Office at Kennedy Space Center's page about the Apollo XI mission, and yet another NASA page which refers to the Mission itself as Apollo XI. So there, on the left? --Lexein (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That would seem to settle the matter. DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  13:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Thank You DoctorJoeE for the message, I will no longer attempet to put infomation revolving Louis B. Mayer. The infomation about Walt Disney's racial insensitivity can be found on page 433 of Walt Disney: The Triumph of Imagination, I will put the page number in the refrences. Luxoman237 (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Luxoman237

New medical organization
Hi I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders. Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Gacy
Hi DoctorJoeE. I reverted the changes on the Gacy page due to the fact the victim's middle name had been added by an IP user seemingly | removing vandalism from another IP user. Sorry if my 2 separate explanations for reverting sounded blunt.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem -- sorry for the misunderstanding. DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  14:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Alcala
for now i'll leave the bundy comparison in the article, but i'm still not sure it should be there esp. in the lead. like i said we don't know what alcala's MO was and how it compared to bundy's various MO's (luring a woman to his car, as well as just kidnapping off the street or breaking into a residence to kill). secondly there is no evidence alcala is a necrophile like bundy. and lastly there is a possibility alcala was bisexual, while bundy was heterosexual. please let me know why you insist on the bundy comparison being in the lead, thanks Sleek Intro (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being willing to talk this over civilly, rather than edit warring. The statement belongs in the article because multiple sources say that investigators have compared Alcala to Ted Bundy.  Whether or not you (or I or anyone else) feel that the comparison is valid is irrelevant; our opinions do not matter on Wikipedia, only sources matter.  There may be very little similarity between the two, beyond the facts that they both killed many young women over a multi-state area, but that's not the point.  The point is that the two serial killers have been compared - a comparison that is well-documented in sources. Disagreement with that comparison by editors constitutes original research (WP:OR).


 * It belongs in the lead, in my opinion, because it's general information, and it helps readers classify Alcala in their minds, right at the outset, as a significant criminal, comparable (according to sources) with Bundy in the scope and severity of his crimes. If you feel strongly the other way, you can certainly start a section on the talk page and see if there is any consensus out there.  Some significant updating of this article will be necessary soon anyway, as Alcala is currently standing trial in NYC for the New York murders (or will be shortly - it may have been postponed due to the hurricane).  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  18:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Timeline Question
Hello, DoctorJoeE! I couldn't help noticing the recent additions to the Bundy article - I had never heard about the Weaver girl. I find something a bit puzzling, though. Two out of the three sources you provided give her death year as 1974, while the other says 1975. This source also points to 1974, as does this one (which was printed in January of 1975). I think the one source screwed up and listed her death a year later. What do you think? Doc  talk  21:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the 1975 date is correct, because in July 1974 Bundy was still in Seattle -- he didn't load up the VW Bug and drive out to Salt Lake City until August. But you're right, I should find some additional sources to confirm that. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  22:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's just not possible for the last source I provided above, dated January 20, 1975, to comment on a murder that wouldn't happen for another seven months. I agree Bundy's being in Seattle in July 1974 presents a problem as to him actually committing the Weaver murder, but four sources saying '74 to one saying '75 to me shows that it had to be 1974. Doc   talk  22:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm -- that is a bit of a sticky wicket, isn't it? If that article is dated correctly it would have to be '74 unless they have a time machine -- but if it really was '74 there would be no reason to even suspect Bundy since he wasn't there. The January '75 article was written before Bundy was arrested, so I can see why they would speculate that Weaver, Smith, and Aime could have been killed by the same guy -- but once they knew Bundy killed Smith and Aime, and that he wasn't in Utah in July '74, there would be no further reason to suspect him in the Weaver case.  Let's see if we can find a source saying he was initially suspected and later ruled out, which is what I now suspect happened.  Good researching, by the way!  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I found a couple more mentions of Weaver, one already in a source we use but on a different page:
 * "The Salt Lake Tribune quoted unidentified sources on Monday as saying authorities were adding the names of Sandra Weaver, a Wisconsin native who had lived in Tooele until her death in 1974, and Brigham Young University student Sue Curtis, who disappeared in 1975."
 * As well as:
 * "Sandra Weaver, a Wisconsin native who had lived in Tooele until her death in 1974, and Brigham Young University student Sue Curtis, who disappeared in 1975, according to The Salt Lake Tribune, which quoted unidentified sources."
 * Both seem to be based on the same source. I don't know why the one source says 1975 for her death, but they must have got it wrong. The FBI timeline firmly places Bundy in Seattle on July 1st and 2nd of 1974, so it is puzzling indeed in hindsight to consider Weaver a possible victim. I'll keep looking for stuff, but I'm not seeing a ton out there so far. Cheers :> Doc   talk  00:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So... what are we going to do about this? At the very least we need to move the Weaver section up to the proper chronological spot in the list, as it is factually incorrect that she was murdered in 1975. If we need to add that he was cleared, it needs to be after we correct this basic factual error. You want to do it or shall I? Doc   talk  02:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was away again. I see that you've already done it, which is fine. DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  21:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Walt Disney
Dear DoctorJoeE

Althoungh I understand that you feel that I was displaying irrelivent infomation, never-the-less a simular sentance to what I have written occurs in a different paragraph: and that ethnic stereotypes common to films of the 1930s were included in some early cartoons, such as Three Little Pigs and The Opry House. Yet mine was deleted and not this one. It is important to stress that racial sterotyping was abundant in cartoons at this time, and Disney was not the only one displaying what is now seen as offencive material. I have not put the sentance back in, but I have re-phrased a sentance to express the same piont.

Luxoman237Luxoman237 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the point, isn't it? That information is already in the article, so your addition is redundant.  I'm not sure why you insist on hammering home this point, which has already been made, and was clear enough as it was.  I don't really care enough about it to take it out again, but I suspect another editor will.  If not, I am at least going to correct your spelling errors, and remove the unnecessary "howevers" (the most overused American word).  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

the Goldman mess
Hey Dr Joe,

I wanted to let you know that after I settle the issue with Dagoldman and his various IP accounts on the FDR's illness article, I'm probably going to bow out of that one for a while. After a week of getting personally ranted at by that guy, it would be deeply unfair for me to try to judge the value of his research. I may still add some material about the history angle later (how FDR's disability was hidden from the public, etc.), but I'll try to restrict myself to that.

So while I do hope you find a way to balance Goldman against historical consensus and other peer-reviewed medical articles, ultimately I won't object to whatever you come up with. Thanks for your work on these and being another set of eyes--I'm glad to be working with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Likewise. After seeing some of the nonsense he wrote and the flames he fired at you, I'm coming around to your paradigm -- maybe we don't need that controversy in the article after all.  The point is basically moot anyway -- that he was paralyzed is an ineluctable fact; what caused it is relatively unimportant.  Still, I will see if I can root out some less hysterical material on the topic.


 * Research involving FDR's medical history is never easy -- I spent countless hours in the FDR Library with Steve Lomazow a few years ago, digging up evidence for the FDR's Deadly Secret book. Originally I was to be one of that book's authors -- I withdrew because I didn't feel we had made a convincing case that metastatic melanoma was his C.O.D. -- and I was right, it turned out (although I remain convinced that melanoma was indeed what killed him).  One of the first things FDR's doctors did after he died was destroy the vast majority of his personal medical records, which is incredibly frustrating.  There are charts from his many hospitalizations, but he used a different pseudonym every time he checked in, so most of those records remain lost.  His pathology specimens are probably tucked away somewhere in the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology basement (they never throw anything away), but probably also under various pseudonyms.


 * In any case, I applaud your diligent work to improve the article, and I hope I can help in some way, in medical and other areas. It would be great to get it restored to GA, or even FA status.  Let me know what I can do to help  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  21:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think it's too far from GA status--nothing in it seems unreasonable, it's just a question of adding sources for it all. A few hours with Google Books and the sources I have from the library and I bet we'll be there. I'm rounding out a few more of the "supporting cast" articles first but hope to tackle the main one soon. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Nonsense"? "Flames"? "Hysterical"? Do you really mean that? I confess to being perhaps long-winded. But these other sins? If I did post nonsense, I apologize. But I would need some examples (and not just an isolated incident). And I hope you can see that labeling a section "the Goldman mess" (I know, you did not do that) is a flame, a pejorative label. I thought my comments (which the other editor for the most part just ignored, declined to respond) were focused on the process and facts. By the way, how would you like it if someone used pejorative terms such as "nonsense" and "hysterical" about you, and did not give specific examples?
 * Your comment "we don't need that controversy" seems to me a psychological reaction, but otherwise a very weak argument. Yes, it's comfortable to have a pat explanation for FDR's paralytic illness, as you yourself pointed out in your thoughtful 2 cents post. I really couldn't say it any better than you did. I would say that if we don't allow for controversy, we just live in an echo chamber, repeating endlessly what prior generations have told us. Does FDR's illness have to be controversial? The majority of FDR's symptoms were more consistent with GBS. So what? What's controversial about that? I believe much could be written about the psychology of why people resist new information, the phenomenon you previously discussed so thoughtfully. Dagoldman (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Gacy
Hi DoctorJoeE. In the John Gacy article, whenever there is usage of a quote, I note there is an insertion of brackets to emphasize a pause between spoken words. For example: "The dental identification is 100 percent solid [...] no question."

Either all other quotations on this article which emphasize a pause between spoken words should have their brackets removed, or this one should also have them inserted, would you agree?

Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree -- and I've never seen that use of brackets, ever -- have you? I didn't realize that there were other examples in the article, or I would have removed them too.  Thanks for pointing it out.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  23:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. If you are not going to remove them (as I suspect may be the case) I will do so.

Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Already done. I could only find 2 others -- if I missed any, be my guest.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good job, DoctorJoeE. I found 1 other myself. I'll have another brief look just to make sure, but I believe that's the lot.

All the best for the New Year. --Kieronoldham (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To you as well! DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  00:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Not sure if you were aware of this (I just stumbled across this when exploring my new HighBeam account) - here's a link. Cheers :> Doc   talk  21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * BUNDY MAY HAVE USED DRUGS AT TRIAL, SAYS WITNESS, WITNESS SAYS BUNDY DRANK DURING TRIAL There's also this strange thing I found - they auctioned Bundy's entire jail cell from the Garfield County Jail to raise money, and no one seems to have wanted to buy it. There's more articles on it (, etc.) and it's amazing to me that this was actually offered up for sale. Doc   talk  09:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, the stuff you come up with! :-) I'll take a good look when I get home (I'm in Portugal at the moment), but the first piece is no surprise -- he was an alcoholic/addict and clearly had access to whatever his little heart desired since he was drunk and/or stoned at most of the prison interviews, so why not in court too? And if I were Ted Bundy (God forbid), I think I'd have to drink and do drugs most of the time too, just to keep my own skin from crawling.  As to selling the cell paraphernalia, I agree, that's weird.  You would think that they would have better means of raising money for defending the indigent, if they were so inclined, but perhaps not.  And obviously they (wrongly) thought that they would raise of lot of money, due to the world's continued Bundy obsession. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  14:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Have fun in Portugal! And yes... of course I've got another weird thing to show you! Look at this crazy spike in page views on January 10! What the hell caused that? Nearly 40,000 hits in one day - and not even the anniversary of his death (tomorrow). Maybe it was the official announcement of Louise's death the day before? I would think so.
 * I'm still looking into what happened to the Garfield jail cell before I think of drafting a sentence, but it's worth mentioning something about it somewhere down the line. Have a good trip! Cheers... Doc   talk  07:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sometimes an article just gets inexplicably popular -- followed, usually, by a spate of well-meant but ill-advised edits, unfortunately. It happens fairly often to my other "baby", D.B. Cooper.  The Garfield Jail thing might be worth a sentence in the "cultural phenomenon" section, once it resolves itself.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  16:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

But finite
Hi. I noticed you reverted my change in Victoria Falls and noted "unexplained edit". Currently the caption reads "despite the small but finite risk of plunging over the edge", and "finite risk" is not a meaningful term in this context. Could you explain why you believe it should be there? --Farzaneh (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello -- sorry for the misunderstanding -- I reverted it because no reason was given for the change, which made it look like a "drive-by". This article suffers a lot of that, for reasons that aren't entirely clear, at least to me; so if your edit was made in good faith, my apologies.  In any case, I disagree that "finite risk" is not meaningful in this context -- I made inquiries about swimming in Devil's Pool when I was there a few months ago, because I couldn't believe that anyone actually did it.  The consensus among locals was that the risk was small, but certainly not zero -- hence finite -- because deaths have been reported.  Quite frankly, I think the caption is fine either way -- with or without the "but finite" -- so if you feel strongly that it's better without it, feel free to make the change again.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  15:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, and to convey this point, "finite" is not an accurate word; neither in ordinary English nor in mathematical sense. Remember zero is not infinite. You might have meant "small but non-zero risk". Nonetheless "small risk" implies "small positive risk". --Farzaneh (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me guess -- you're a mathematician? :-) While zero is not infinite, it can (and has) been argued that it's not finite either, since it cannot can be divided by itself to obtain a real number.  I do get that most scientific definitions of "finite" do include zero -- but there are plenty of times when you need to refer to all finite numbers except zero -- and yes, I also get that that's what "non-zero" is for. What you're saying, I think, is that there's no sense in screwing up the definition of "finite" when "non-zero" is a natural and widely accepted way to say the same thing.


 * That said, in the real (non-math) world, I'm confident that all but the most anal-retentive readers would interpret "finite" to mean "some number greater than zero but less than infinity" in this specific context.


 * THAT said, I have absolutely no problem with "small risk", which does indeed imply "small but non-zero risk", and I have made the change in the article. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  21:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. Next time you are reverting someone's edit, make sure you do your research first. And by the way, zero is finite, and so are other natural numbers. You don't have to use offensive language about people's usage of English to make your point. --Farzaneh (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? What "offensive language" are we talking about?  I apologize if you took offense at anything I wrote; I thought I was conceding your point!  As to "doing my research", I explained why I reverted, and why I reversed the revert.  So when you edit, please jot down a brief explanation in the edit summary box.  If other editors don't have to guess at the reasoning behind your edit, there is far less chance that it will be reverted. Again, I apologize; no offense was meant.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  00:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I was referring to your use of "anal-retentive", but I appreciate that you didn't mean to use it offensively. I'll make sure I write an explanation even when the change seems trivial to me, as it may not be trivial to others. --Farzaneh (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ted Bundy
Hi, DoctorJoeE. I saw that you were one of the major contributors to Ted Bundy. If you have the time or inclination, Hugh_Aynesworth could use a small bit of work from someone who is more familiar with Bundy. I certainly understand if you have other stuff going on. Thanks! Location (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to take a look; thanks for the heads-up. DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  13:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

DSM-IV-TR
Not sure if you have citable access to this document, but:
 * 302.9 Paraphilia not otherwise specified (NOS)
 * The following brief passage contains all of the text in DSM-IV-TR under the heading just above: "This category is included for coding paraphilias that do not meet the criteria for any of the specific categories. Examples include, but are not limited to, telephone scatologia (obscene phone calls), necrophilia (corpses), partialism (exclusive focus on part of body), zoophilia (animals), coprophilia (feces), klismaphilia (enemas), and urophilia (urine)" (p. 576).

Found this through HighBeam. You should apply for it, as you will definitely get it in the next round! Anyway, before you craft the foot fetish entry, keep this DSM criteria in mind. I can e-mail you the full article, which is interesting, so just say the word! Cheers :> Doc   talk  05:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would love the full article, and thanks!
 * So Ted had at least three -- the feet and the severed heads are two forms of partialism, plus necrophilia -- and there were reports that he urinated on girls as a kid -- obviously clustering them on my own would be OR, but there might be a source for clustering out there in the psychiatric literature...
 * Applying for HighBeam involves, I would guess, going to HighBeam.com? Is anything else required (other than money)?  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  05:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Apply here: HighBeam/Applications. Now, it took me and others quite some time to get it in the last round (months beyond the promised delivery date), but it will eventually be granted to you. It's a totally free trial 1-year membership, with no credit card number needed or any sort of payment at all. It has surprised me with some things I've looked for, and disappointed me with others. Overall it's a very good source for research. I will e-mail you the full text of the article I found, all sources included. Cheers :> Doc   talk  05:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Doc  talk  06:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate it. DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  06:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

White on White
Hi. The two images are both correct now, after replacing the usages of the old version I uploaded a rotated version of it. As the old picture doesn't show the entire painting the picture on Commons should probably be used instead. I also prefer the version from Commons for the same reasons as you. Bjelleklang -  talk 15:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks for the reply!  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  15:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Edward Gorey
Hey man, not sure how to do this edit thing very good. But I wanted to ask you why you rolled back the changes on Edward Gorey's wiki page. Someone went to a bit of effort to make the history section readable with decent grammar and you rolled it back as vandalism. This is why I stopped contributing to Wikipedia myself 10 years ago. Did you even look at the changes before you rolled them back? What was bad about them? Now the history section reads like an incompetent wrote it. That or someone with English as their third language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.210.233 (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no "history" section in the article. Looks to me like his last edit to the article was correcting . The other revert looks perfectly justified as well. Things were different 10 years ago. Welcome to the "new" Wikipedia :> Doc   talk  16:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Thanks, Doc. I am, in fact, hoping to make some improvements to that article, once I finish a few higher-priority items.  So many articles, so little time.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  19:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for pointing out my failure to provide sources for the edits in the Bob Sheppard article. I have done so. <font face="Century Gothic">  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: Phil Spector article
Hi, DoctorJoeE. Thank you for correcting the contributions I made to the Phil Spector article. As I am new at this, I overstepped my boundaries in trying to edit the article to reflect the connection Spector has to my mentor, Beverly Ross. I am aware that a conflict exists, because I do know her in real life and helped edit her memoir which was just released. Any assistance or advice you can provide to me would be greatly appreciated as I am trying to provide information about her to Wiki in order to make others aware of her cultural and historic significance in the creation of the Rock 'N' Roll genre. Also, her work and collaboration with African American blues composer, Julius Dixson before the passage of the Civil Rights Act is a great story of the fearlessness of artists to overcome racial and societal boundaries. By no means did I intend to SPAM the page. Please forgive my ignorance of procedure. Best, EditorAmandaEditorAmanda (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Beverly Ross sounds like an interesting person; with all that's been written about some of her contemporaries (Carol King, Sedaka, Lieber & Stoller, etc.), I'm surprised that we haven't heard more about her. I see that you've taken some preliminary steps toward starting an article on her -- but as you've already surmised, WP:COI is going to be a significant issue for you.  I'll be happy to help, if you'd like, but I'll need to learn a lot more about Ms. Ross than I know now, which is practically nothing.  Can you point me toward some reference material?  Is there a biography, perchance, or something similar?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  03:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes! I will send you a copy of her book if you'd like that. Also, I'll start making a list of online and other book references. Nobody has ever written much about her because... she's a bit of a diva, and fell between the cracks after she claims to have had a near nervous breakdown after being betrayed by some of her professional colleagues, namely, Phil Spector. Should I post the references here on your talk page, or should I start adding them to the stub page I created for Beverly?EditorAmanda (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Here on the talk page would be great. Thanks.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  11:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here they are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollipop_%281958_song%29 http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2008/04/clip_job_the_de.php http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20119510,00.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_of_My_Best_Friend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remember_Then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bobrick>br> http://www.allmusic.com/artist/julius-edward-dixon-mn0000254520 http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists-female.html http://www.sambobrick.com/music.php I will include some book non-web references asap. Thank you so much for helping! This stuff is overwhelming at first. EditorAmanda (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It certainly is, for everyone. This will be a hectic week for me, with the imminent holidays, but I will get on it as soon as I can.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep hacking away at the stub and will try not to mess anything up. :) EditorAmanda (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: Phil Spector article
Hi, DoctorJoeE. Thank you for correcting the contributions I made to the Phil Spector article. As I am new at this, I overstepped my boundaries in trying to edit the article to reflect the connection Spector has to my mentor, Beverly Ross. I am aware that a conflict exists, because I do know her in real life and helped edit her memoir which was just released. Any assistance or advice you can provide to me would be greatly appreciated as I am trying to provide information about her to Wiki in order to make others aware of her cultural and historic significance in the creation of the Rock 'N' Roll genre. Also, her work and collaboration with African American blues composer, Julius Dixson before the passage of the Civil Rights Act is a great story of the fearlessness of artists to overcome racial and societal boundaries. By no means did I intend to SPAM the page. Please forgive my ignorance of procedure. Best, EditorAmandaEditorAmanda (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Beverly Ross sounds like an interesting person; with all that's been written about some of her contemporaries (Carol King, Sedaka, Lieber & Stoller, etc.), I'm surprised that we haven't heard more about her. I see that you've taken some preliminary steps toward starting an article on her -- but as you've already surmised, WP:COI is going to be a significant issue for you.  I'll be happy to help, if you'd like, but I'll need to learn a lot more about Ms. Ross than I know now, which is practically nothing.  Can you point me toward some reference material?  Is there a biography, perchance, or something similar?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  03:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes! I will send you a copy of her book if you'd like that. Also, I'll start making a list of online and other book references. Nobody has ever written much about her because... she's a bit of a diva, and fell between the cracks after she claims to have had a near nervous breakdown after being betrayed by some of her professional colleagues, namely, Phil Spector. Should I post the references here on your talk page, or should I start adding them to the stub page I created for Beverly?EditorAmanda (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Here on the talk page would be great. Thanks.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  11:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here they are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollipop_%281958_song%29 http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2008/04/clip_job_the_de.php http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20119510,00.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_of_My_Best_Friend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remember_Then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bobrick>br> http://www.allmusic.com/artist/julius-edward-dixon-mn0000254520 http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists-female.html http://www.sambobrick.com/music.php I will include some book non-web references asap. Thank you so much for helping! This stuff is overwhelming at first. EditorAmanda (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It certainly is, for everyone. This will be a hectic week for me, with the imminent holidays, but I will get on it as soon as I can.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep hacking away at the stub and will try not to mess anything up. :) EditorAmanda (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

==Spector==

Hello, I just created a Wikipedia account today. I tried to add a spouse line to the Phil Spector bio. page , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Spector, I thought it should be as simple as adding the following line (just like in other pages): it did not work in this page. Would you please help?JCCBama (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * spouse             = Rachelle Short (m. 2006)


 * , I'm as baffled as you. It appears in the source material but not the info box itself!  You might want to pose your question on the article's talk page, where it will surely be answered by someone with a better grasp of the technical aspects of WP than mine.  (I'm almost exclusively a content editor.) Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Dietrich von Choltitz
Your recent editing history 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.

Why do you tell others to go to the talk page and then not do so yourself? I am adding more information, with more reliable sources than movie reviews. --74.59.112.163 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * First, you cannot add an edit war template when you are the other party involved. Secondly, this is not an edit war, since I restored only the information you removed stating one side of the case (including sources), which was an obvious violation of WP:NPOV, and left your other edits. Third, since you are the one changing the content, the burden is on you to make your case on the talk page. If you persist in removing sourced content without explanation, I will seek administrative assistance.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  03:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I can too add the template, as I was simply warning you to heed your own advice and go to the talk page, which you had refused to do. What exactly of mine did you leave on the page? a link correction, that is it. I have already explained why I removed sourced content, because those sources aren't up to wikipedia's standards.

--74.59.112.163 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, actually, you can't -- since you were the other party involved. As I mentioned on the talk page, you only went there after my revert, not before, as you claimed, and you didn't make a valid case for the material you removed. Magazine articles (reviews or otherwise) do not violate WP:RS, but your removal of an entire side of a story, complete with cited sources, violates WP:NPOV.  I will be restoring the material with additional sourcing.  As for what content of yours I left in the article, it was the 4 paragraphs pertaining to Choltitz's career -- but I have since noticed (and noted on the talk page) that you did not cite any sources for this material; interesting, for someone so particular about sourcing.  Please do so.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please direct me to where on wikipedia it says I can't ask you to cease edit-warring? As for your other comments, those are being discussed on the talk page so I will leave it there. An opinion piece by a movie critic about an unrelated movie is not a reliable source on a historical figure, if there was some citations by the author or some authority on the subject, then it would be different. But a movie critic is no more qualified to write about history (and be used as an expert source) than I am at performing surgery.

--74.59.112.163 (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, take a look at Arguments to avoid in edit wars, for starters. More references on request.  It's basically an example of wikilawyering -- and the pot calling the kettle black.  And please stop dwelling on the New Yorker article, which I don't object to removing. What I do object to is your removing the other sources for that content, such as the Baruma article -- and the content itself.  Let's continue this, as you said, on the article talk page. I have other sources, which I will list there, hopefully later tonight.  And I will restore the content, along with sources that I hope you approve of.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March drive newsletter
— Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardsBot (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue
Books & Bytes Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013 (Sign up for monthly delivery) Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
 * Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
 * Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
 * New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
 * Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
 * Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
 * Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Call for Volunteers

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
 * Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
 * Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
 * Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
 * Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Sign up to help here :)  Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If I left you a message on your talk page, please answer on your talk page. There is no need to let me know, since I will have added your talk page to my watch list; but if you want to be sure I see it, you can ping me there, or simply drop a note on this page.
 * If you leave me a message here, I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and I will ping you to let you know.
 * Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked.

<br style="clear:both" />

'''WP:RETENTION This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.'''

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)