User talk:DoctorJoeE/Archive 2

D.B. Cooper
I'm Currently doing a research paper on D.B. Cooper is there anyway I can get an email adress so i could ask you a few questions thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bchambers8 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In the toolbox on this talk page, click on "Email this user". I'll be happy to help in any way I can. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Im not sure if my emails have sent. I'm new to wikipedia and just wanted to make sure they got through. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bchambers8 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I received one, which I answered this morning. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ted Bundy
Hi DoctorJoeE and trust you are well. As you know the Ted Bundy page is being vandalised again by a person who seems to specialise in obscene names. I have asked the administrator who blocked Rapeisnotacrime to consider doing the same to Sensuallntracourse. No doubt this sick person will soon get tired of making silly edits. Anyway, no doubt, you and I will continue to keep watch on this article. With best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I noticed! And I inadvertently reverted one of your edits a little while ago -- sorry about that -- although the final result appears to be the same, or very similar.  Strange vandal, this guy -- we'll just have to keep an eye out for him, as I'm sure he'll be back. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello again DoctorJoeE, Sensuallntracourse now blocked, we'll have to see if he re-surfaces under another obscene name. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:22, 27 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)

Milton Berle
I see you updated the Milton Berle page thank you. I wanted to place information about comedian Ted Healy because that was Milton's number one influence. Though now Healy is fogotten he was number one in the 1920s vaudeville.

Here is the Offical Milton Berle homepage by his licensing company

http://www.cmgww.com/stars/berle/about/biography.html

Milton became a joke stealer from Ted Healy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejonestexas (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem -- we really should cite RS for the Healy-Berle connection, which shouldn't be too difficult to find. Healy's Stooges influence is well-known -- the Berle influence, not so much.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ted Bundy categories
May I ask for an explanations as to why you reverted the subcategorizations? The categories that he was in was getting too large, and should be subcategorized. --Nlu (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologies; similar subcategories have been reverted in the past (by others) on the grounds that such detailed subcategorization is unnecessary and confusing. However, I now notice that categorization appears to be a project of yours, so if you think it's necessary, so be it.  No offense meant.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  01:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me on it. I understand the thought now.
 * I do recognize that there is a tension between having categories-too-large-to-be-useful or categories-too-small-to-be-useful, and it's not always a clear balance that's easy to draw, so I do appreciate thoughts on it. The way I see it is that small categories may become larger, but large categories (unless subcategorized) cannot get smaller, so I tend to think subcategorization is something that can/should be done when categories get large, but as I said, it's not always an easy balance.  --Nlu (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
The credit goes to those who were willing to listen to reason. But thanks. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  personal health

Thank you for quality articles on people, such as Hack Wilson, for dispute resolution, copy-editing, new page patrol, treatment of articles' talk pages, and for thinking "Sounds like that scale -- the one that balances user contributions with user issues -- needs some serious recalibrating", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing! DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the healthy diet of your advice to self - I passed it on, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Bundy
I read the talkpage and I do agree what's on the death certificate should be what's listed. When making my edit I was unaware that was on his death certificate. However, other executed criminals I've come across say execution then give the method such as John Wayne Gacy so getting some consistency might not be a bad idea.-- Rockchalk 717 19:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right, consistency is always a good idea. I would favor all articles listing the COD that's on the death certificate, regardless of what it is.  Anything else is POV, really, and if the COD is disputed, that should be listed too.  I'll look into bringing it up wherever such general policies are discussed -- perhaps the Village Pump?  Best,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
Peter! Where the heck have you been? No, it wasn't, actually. I rose to the bait and I'm not happy about it. Dennis Brown deserves this, and I will share it with him, but keep 25% to remind myself not to let it happen again. But I appreciate the thought, and it's great to hear from you. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been abroad, trying to fill your massive shoes. Pity you got that particular admin; most others, I reckon, would have just blocked him and been done with it. P  P  P  05:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I purposely went to Dennis -- he's like me, but far more patient. I didn't want to "block him and be done with it".  He didn't understand that he crossed the line.  Blocking him would have solved nothing.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And what was solved? He's still badmouthing you!  P  P  P  05:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but so what? If he hangs around for awhile he'll figure it out.  Or he won't.  I don't really care.  Still slaving at the Times?   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes; and you're still freelancing, I see. P  P  P  05:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep. They keep offering me a regular column.  I don't know what part of 'no" they don't understand.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Howard showed me the offer sheet; I can't believe you're turning it down. P  P  P  05:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't need the money, Peter. And I'd have to cut back on my practice, which I don't want to do.  This way I write what I want, when I want.  Suits me fine.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * But you spend a lot time here, for free, and your reward is to get flamed by some kid who questions your RESEARCH skills, of all things? P  P  P  05:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Peter, if I don't care, why should you? Besides, most people here are terrific -- like Dennis -- and we're trying to create something special.  The future belongs to wikis (or whatever succeeds them), not newspapers.  I assume you know that, since you're back, and I hope you'll be doing some editing.  Family okay?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * All but Robert. Any grandkids yet?  P  P  P  05:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, but soon. Robert is still an issue??  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's continue this on e-mail. P  P  P  05:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion below made me smile. How naive of you to think that you can gather a consensus to call a spade a spade, the way you have in print for so many years! P P  P  13:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, stop it. But yes, that's a basic WP flaw: no hierarchy, no one in charge, just the wisdom of crowds. This particular wisdom is incorrect, but the only way to change it is to chip away at it.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

on Tutu
I feel like we're getting offtopic and I've already posted a bit too much over there, I'm happy to explain what I was trying to do with the Tutu example here - is that ok? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. I think I get what you were getting at, but if you want to elaborate, feel free.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me try. I was using Tutu as an example, because his name had been brought up in slippery-slope arguments, and you yourself had said that this had to be reliably sourced, not just random accusations. So, I went and found reliable sources - again that was only 5 minutes of searching, I'm sure 20 articles could be found that say the same thing. The point was that if Tutu is included, and sources can easily be so-found, then Mel Gibson would be in as well, and then it's a floodgates - because you have *lots* of people in that category. Alf (and others) seem to be saying that there are real antisemites and then less-important anti-semites, and Tutu is not in the same class as Mullin or Pound or whoever - which is fine and acceptable. I personally don't think Tutu is an anti-semite, and I don't agree with the labels so-applied, but if there *was* a category for South African anti-semites, and the inclusion criteria was 5 reliable sources must call him that, then I'd (sadly) put him in. Does that make sense? It all comes down to inclusion criteria, which in the case of a bias, are subjective. Now, we have other subjective categories, like anti-communists or whatever, but these are not bias categories, they are things that person identifies with, and they are not used to defame in the same way a racist or homophobic or sexist or antisemitic label is, so even if we get it wrong, it's not going to ruffle feathers. But with such contentious labels, the consensus has been, don't apply them to people - you can use them to group ideas, but not people, because drawing the line of what is an antisemite (or racist, etc) is always essentially subjective. Happy to explain more, plz ask questions about which parts don't make sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I completely understand the dilemma, but I disagree with your argument (which is admittedly shared by many) that there are "real" antisemites, and then there are antisemites with a Nobel Prize, or some other sort of get-out-of-jail-free card. How does it make sense to say that Tutu, who has minimized the suffering of Holocaust victims, invoked classic antisemitic stereotypes and tropes, and accused "the Jews" of causing many of the world's problems, is not an antisemite?  Does his Nobel Prize shield him from accountability for a long history of anti-Jewish bigotry?  Should it also shield Yassir Arafat, Jimmy Carter, and Jose Saramago?  I don't think so.  I don't think that these people -- along with Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Walt Disney, Pat Buchanan and Mel Gibson, for that matter --  are "less-important" antisemites.  They may in fact be MORE important, because of their otherwise upstanding reputations.  Persuadable people will often discount the ravings of the Hitlers, Pounds, and Mullins of the world, because they are clearly extremists; but those same people might believe Tutu because of that Nobel medal and the big cross around his neck and all the anti-apartheid stuff.  Including these people would not "open the floodgates", it would just include people who deserve to be included.  Bigotry needs to be challenged, regardless of who is spouting it, because otherwise the bigots think it's okay.  My two cents.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see your point. I just think you're misunderstanding how the category system is supposed to work. Per WP:OCAT, subjective or arbitrary inclusion criteria are not permitted. I know you may have a clear line in your head, but you (and no-one else) has yet dared state it in a form that other editors could follow. For you, Tutu is absolutely in. For Alf, he's absolutely out. You see the problem? If you really want to beat up on poor Tutu, PUT IT IN HIS ARTICLE. That's where you can capture nuance, and source things, and link to statements he's made, and actually make a case. Having him be or not be a member of a category is meaningless - especially if NONE of these categories should have bios, anyway.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I totally get the "put it in the article" thing -- that's not a matter of dispute.  And I don't care enough about Tutu, one way or the other, to start a fight over at his page.  I just think that once you have firm reliable source citations to back you up, it cannot be called subjective or arbitrary.  Maybe that's only true in the real world, I don't know.  You are certainly correct that I don't have a firm grasp on WP rules -- which everyone keeps telling me aren't really rules anyway.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. Once you have sources, you can go to Tutu's article and say "Dershowitz accused Tutu of being an anti-semite based on a speech he made where he said bad things about Israel".^1. No problem. But let's say thats *all* you had. Can you then slot him in the antisemites category, too? If not, why not? You have a reliable source. If I find a reliable source that says Tutu was born in Pretoria - BOOM - he's in the "born in Pretoria" category, and its unlikely to be debated. But is one source enough to put Tutu in? Here's an example Tehmina_Adaya - should she go in? She was, a few days ago. Her crime was yelling at a bunch of jews. Once! I mean, I'm not defending her, but you really want to slot her with Mullin and Pound?
 * One reliable source is enough for most categories. With anti-whatever, that's where the subjectivity comes in - how much anti-semite does someone have to be before they can get the dishonor of being placed in the category anti-semite with the other bigots? For other categories, like "poet", we're a bit more flexible - fine, he wrote 5 poems, the other guy wrote 100, no worries, they're both poets. But a slur, a black mark, and a membership in dubious company on the category screen is quite different than sitting chummily aside your fellow poets. That's the whole problem! We use WP:DEFINING to determine membership, but for slur/bias categories, it was decided, wisely I think, to just avoid them all-together. Otherwise, it's "well, he's been called racist 10 times" "yeah, but those guys hate him" - and so on. You're arguing over a binary, rather than arguing over something which is, in reality, much more complex. Check out the song "Everyone's a little bit racist" - you might like it. We do have other "bad" categories, like - but notice the criteria - the person has to be CONVICTED. So some other entity in the real world passed a final judgment on this person - a justice system. There is no supreme court of anti-semitism, there is no master list of whose been naughty and whose been nice - if there was, perhaps we could categorize based on that - but it doesn't exist. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I understand that it is not cut and dried, that each decision would have to be made on a case-by-case basis, that it would be difficult, and undoubtedly contentious. And that everyone will have different criteria for inclusion.  (Dershowitz, for example, sets the threshold much lower than I do, and includes such people as Jimmy Carter and Stephen Hawking because they side with the Palestinians.)  But that does not mean that we should not do it, or at least try, IMHO.  Others will certainly disagree.  We may have to wait for the pendulum to swing away from "diversity" and political correctness, and back toward accountability.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And the result is what? Let's say we do that, and we have a final, agreed upon category full of confirmed, card-carrying anti-semites. Then we create another category of confirmed racists, and another one of confirmed homophobes. How does that help the user? I think an article like Antisemitism in the 19th century would be infinitely more useful than a category of, especially if there were constantly people be added and removed from the cat, which is EXACTLY what happens today with these categories, and I don't see why it would change. Another question: Do you agree that current consensus is to *not* have people in these categories, having read the 2011 CFD and the comments of the closing admins, Tim and GoodOlFactory? Would you thus support removing accused anti-semites from that category, until such time as an RFC establishes a different consensus? It's fine to have an opinion, but we should also comply with consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "consensus" is a mythical state of utopian human evolution, and if it is ever truly reached, Wikipedia will spontaneously disappear. Until then, WP will remain a place where 6 editors have 8 opinions on any given subject.  You are basically trying to herd cats.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is woolly and shifting, but it is *also* a policy, one of the foundational pillars of wikipedia. Consensus can change, which is why I proposed that those wanting to categorize anti-semites create an RFC and see what the community thinks. And if you want to see cats being herded, check out the RFC on whether Jerusalem is indeed the capital of Israel - absolute mess, but we have to resolve it, so a broad community approach is the best way we have.
 * Personally, I don't think you'll succeed, as even amongst those studying and writing about anti-semitism, there is NO objective standard or agreed upon criteria for what differentiates someone who says something anti-semitic, says something against Israel or Zionism, says something against a Jewish person in front of him, publishes a book criticizing some aspect of Judaism or Israel or Zionism - in short, what defines an anti-semite, and what marks someone as instead a critic of Judaism or a critic of Israel? As you noted, even the major scholars in this area disagree, and some would call X a card-carrying anti-semite, while others would simply disagree. Which is why this sort of thing is best left for the article space and not as a binary category (in or out). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverting my edit on Mozarts article?
Perhaps saying he was influential and prolific is NOT an opinion....but he WAS Austrian. Id like permission to add that he was Austrian to the article. Thanks.JohnnyR997 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Take a look at several long discussions on the talk page, some of which may be archived by now. Austria did not exist as a country during Mozart's lifetime, so calling him an Austrian makes no more sense than calling Julius Caesar an Italian, or Jesus Christ an Israeli.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize.
I apologize for adding that he was Austrian. I understand now.JohnnyR997 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing to apologize for! DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Pulitzer
Word around city desk is they're putting your name in for another one. By yourself this time. P P  P  15:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice thought, if true. But only Gene has won two for pure investigative, yes?  And I'm no Gene.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It would have been his idea if he were still with us. Didn't you work for him once? Nobody in our business commands that level of respect anymore. P  P  P  19:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I did, and that's true. Very curious; public opinion polls still consistently elect Cronkite "the most trusted man in written history" -- yet those same polls place journalists, as a class, at the bottom of the respect pile with politicians, attorneys, used car salesmen, and ex-cons.  And we have no one to blame for our shoddy image but ourselves; we're the media, after all -- we’re in the image business!  It's humiliating, really -- like a chef dying of food poisoning.  Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.  Still, the bad rep is largely undeserved among rank-and-file beat reporters.  We fulfill an indispensable civic function, casting light where the rich and powerful would prefer to transact by slippery feel.  In a fair world, we would be rewarded with parades -- or at the very least, one of those minor holidays where everything stays open.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * About 70% of that last will be in tomorrow's column. With absolutely no attribution!  P  P  P  15:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The story of my life. ;-)  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Richard Ramirez
Hello, DoctorJoeE! As I'm sure you've heard, the bastard is finally dead. 23 years on Death Row - how much did CA taxpayers pay for his incarceration and appeals? A staggering amount, I'm sure. Anyhoo, the article needs major improvement, and I want to take it on. I have Philip Carlo's excellent book and am familiar with this monster's story. I know you've edited the article: are you interested in improving it with me? If you're busy, I certainly understand, and I am on no deadline. Let me know what you think! Cheers :) Doc   talk  00:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, happy to help.
 * I'll be in Iceland for the next 10 days - not sure how consistent the internet access is there, so if I'm slow in replying you'll know why.
 * I'm dying (pun intended) to see what his flaky wife is going to do now -- by all accounts she's a complete nut job (surprise!), and has said repeatedly that she would off herself after Ramirez was executed. My guess is that his "natural causes" COD is her loophole. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Iceland? Dang! Anthony Bourdain rated it the worst food he had ever eaten (lutefisk and stuff like that). Hope you're eating well! As far as Doreen, I am curious as well what she'll do. I also doubt she'll kill herself, but some sort of statement I'll be looking for. The article realty is a shambles, and it will be great to get it to a respectable place. Have fun! Cheers :) Doc   talk  21:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Lutefisk is the Devil's spawn, no doubt -- as you might expect of any food created as a vehicle for mass murder -- even if it didn't work.  It looks as if someone already ate it, quite frankly.  My Scandinavian friends insist that it's a once in a lifetime treat, but once every 4 or 5 lifetimes is quite sufficient for me.  That said, we just had a superb dinner in Reykjavik -- so as long as I can stay away from the fermented shark and puffin confit, I might survive.  My days will be occupied this week (I'm covering a summit), but I'll try my best to help out evenings, assuming I have adequate internet access.  Next week will be better, although I'm also working on Althea Gibson, trying to get her ready for the GA queue.  But as you said, there's no rush -- better to take a bit longer and get it right.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Ref Format
I gotta go to bed. We've worked the ref format, and needs fixing. Cheers... Doc  talk  09:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It was the end of a very long day on a crappy Reykjavik wifi connection. What did I do wrong?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  12:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing: I just had a shitty day and didn't mean to be so curt with you. I always regret posting things like that the next day, and I avoid even looking at the site until I've gotten over my embarrassment. Sorry about that. Doc  talk  04:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

However: I don't think is a good source at all save the transcript of the Dobson interview. It's a blog, and it really shows. Doc  talk  05:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't apologize, we've all been there. I understand it's a blog, but the guy is a credible and well-known psychologist, and his analysis was spot on, IMAO.  But yes, we have rules, such as they are.  I'll find a better source.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hack Wilson
There was an error in your recent edit of the Hack Wilson article. See the reference section at the bottom for the error message.Orsoni (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Already noticed, and fixed. Thanks.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

GOCE June/July 2013 events
Most of my edits are for grammar, syntax, orthography, etc., so I was surprised that you undid the edits I made of the article on Ted Bundy.

In the case of "honor" or "honors," I simply corrected the phrase "honor student" to "honors student," because the correct usage, regardless of how the source spelled (or misspelled) it, is "honors student". There is no such thing as an "honor [sic] student". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honors_student, and you should be more careful about repeating the errors of others.

In the case of "multiple family members," I deleted "multiple" because it is redundant; "family members" implies more than one family member and that's adequate since we don't know how many. Besides, "multiple" is a poor substitute for "many", "several", "a multitude of", and other more appropriate adjectives. That's why I also replaced it in the "Pathology" section. An improvement, in my opinion.

Please undo your revisions. Thanks. Autodidact1 (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * With all respect, who says that there is "no such thing as an honor student"? Certainly not the article you referenced (which can't be cited as a source anyway).  When I was a kid, we took "honors classes", but no one ever referred to us as "honors students", and nobody ever got his name on anything called an "honors roll".  And even if you are correct, and all Bundy reference (and all of my teachers) are wrong, has any confusion been created?  Either way the meaning is clear, yes?  I see your point that "multiple family members" is redundant, but the phrase "family members" is vague in the extreme; adding "multiple" communicates that Louise received this advice from a significant number of relatives, not just a cousin or two -- which is something we do know, from Polly Nelson and Rule, at least.  I also agree that "multiple is a poor substitute for many", because the two words have quite different meanings: "multiple" implies two or more, and "many" implies a large number.  In both cases here (the family members and the psychiatric professionals), we do not know that the number was large, but we do know that it was greater than two; so multiple seems more accurate, at least to me.  You are welcome, of course, to seek out a consensus on the talk page if you feel that any of these points are worth such a discussion.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ted Healy
You do see that in the newspaper advertisements that Healy's name was deleted? Look on here on the right you will see his name is removed.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=yzggAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aFQEAAAAIBAJ&dq=tedhealy&pg=4497%2C5716528

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpkLVUaBcB8


 * You may very well be right that the studio pulled Healy's name from promotional material, but the cited references don't say that. The YouTube clip clearly shows Healy's name on the poster, starting at about 0:30.  (Also, YouTube is not WP:RS in most situations.)  The Spokane Daily Chronicle article says, "Cast includes Rosemary and Lola Lane, Hugh Herbert, Ted Healy, and Glenda Farrell."  I do see that the accompanying ad does not include Healy's name, but how do you know that it was removed?  It's WP:OR to draw that conclusion without a source (preferably a secondary one) that specifically says it, and I don't know of one (although I have other material at home that I will look through).  If you have one, feel free to add it back, along with the source.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Prize
If you hadn't noticed, Edwin just won a major prize, based mostly (90%? More?) on material he stole from you. You know that? P P  P  15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. It's great when stuff that you've penned gets acknowledged as worthy by some higher authority.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * But HE got the award!! Why doesn't that make you tear your hair out?  P  P  P  15:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What hair? ;-) Hey, do I really need another piece of hardware sitting on a shelf in my study, needing dusting?  Half the ones in there are tarnished almost beyond recognition.  I know, and you know, and Ed knows that my material won the award, and that's all that matters.  Let Ed dust the damn statue; saves me the trouble.  Remember who said, "It's astonishing how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit"?   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Truman. P  P  P  15:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Correctamundo. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, you should care, in this case, in my arrogant opinion. If it were me, I would be down at his house right now, pounding on the front door.   P  P  P  18:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And exactly what would that do for you? Look, you know the drill -- he changed just enough words that it's not actionable.  But everyone in the business knows what he did, just as everyone in standup comedy knew that Denis Leary was ripping off Bill Hicks's material (allegedly).  You can either get really pissed and tear your hair out and throw tantrums, which is what Bill did, and look where it got him.  Or you can relax and move on, which is what I choose to do; just as I did when those two ignoramuses were pestering me here, a couple of months ago.  We don't write this stuff to win prizes, we do it to accomplish a goal -- and in this case, the bastards are in jail.  I don't know for certain that that would have happened had Ed not taken my findings and republished them.  So let him have his little statuette.  It's not worth the tsuriss.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I will be seeing him at a dinner Saturday, and I'm going to give him a piece of my mind. (Sorry, I messed up your signature on the last post, somehow.)  P  P  P  19:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Drop the stick, Peter, and back away from the horse carcass. Let it go.  (I already fixed the signature thing, no worries.)   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I probably should have heeded your advice. P P  P  13:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Libretti
Hi, DoctorJoeE, With regard to the use of the word "libretto" (which I removed as awkward, potentially misleading, and inaccurate, and you reverted in this diff) in the Florence Foster Jenkins article introduction, I would submit the following thoughts. "Libretto" is not, as you state, "the words that you sing". The words that you sing are lyrics; the words, sung or spoken, of an opera, are the libretto. Libretti are the text of long vocal works; Jenkins sang short vocal works, some, but only some, of which were arias excerpted from opera. Her bizarre pronunciation was not limited to the latter. Besides being inaccurate, the original phrasing ("aberrant pronunciation of libretti") might have led to some confusion about whether we were saying that she couldn't pronounce the word "libretti" properly. Your changes have been reverted since (and not by me), but I hope you will consider the above in deciding if any further action is needed. - Nunh-huh 20:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I won't split hairs with you on the definition of "libretto", but having been around singers all my life, I can say with some confidence that they use "libretto" to refer to sung or spoken text in general, even in lieder and such. Also, one  could argue that labeling FloFo's pronunciation as generally "aberrant" implies that her spoken conversation was bizarre as well, which AFAIK was not the case.  So if we wanted to be truly precise, it might be more accurate to say "aberrant pronunciation of libretti and lyrics".  But it's not a distinction important enough to merit an argument, so I have no objection to letting it stand as is, and I probably should not have bothered to revert in the first place.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * After writing the above I reread the lede and changed the grammar slightly, since as written it basically said that she was known for a lack of aberrant pronunciation. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As the other reverter, I want to say that your latest changes are a definite improvement. I didn't catch that the meaning was reversed, but you're right. Incidentally, I think the phrase "libretti and lyrics" would be awkward because the latter already includes the former, but I guess it's a moot point now. Rivertorch (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * True enough; I think it's fine as is. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  01:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that you've greatly improved the intro. - Nunh-huh 21:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!
Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ted Bundy
Hello DoctorJoeE, Would just like your advice please. Some days ago I reverted a edit from an unregistered user Inhighspeed on the Ted Bundy article. This "user" attempted to put Bundy in yet another category "People executed for murder" - I felt this was a unnecessary addition to a mass of categories, by a user who does not have a good editing history. However, he has re-inserted his addition and I do not want to get into a edit war, but would appreciate your opinion on this. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, David -- sorry for the tardy reply -- I'm in Peru at the moment and internet access is inconsistent. With stuff like this I tend to take the high road; you're right that it's unnecessary, but it's not something worth arguing over. My advice would be to let the edit stand, and at some later date, when the drive-by user is long gone, you can remove it at your leisure if you wish.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  01:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi DoctorJoeE, thanks for your reply, I agree probably best to leave as it is until user is long gone - which probably won't be long. Do enjoy Peru, somewhere I've always wanted to go. Perhaps we can have a chat when you return? As ever, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You okay?
Are you okay? No response to multiple emails, your phone is off, and your editor won't return my calls. Couldn't think of any other way to try to contact you. P P  P  13:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm fine, thanks -- the paper blocks phone & email communications in potentially dicey situations. They were literally shutting the door on last night's flight to Newark when Humala's private secretary & a bunch of presidential guards pulled me off -- said Humala would talk to me today -- he's been blowing all of us off (including Brokaw) for 2 weeks -- so couldn't turn that down.  Been waiting all morning at the presidential palace.  Might also be a chance to go into Apurimac-Ene valley with the next SWAT team.  Film at 11.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The new face of DRN:
Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Phil Spector
I removed the murder category in Phil Spector's page because he was aquitted in the first trial.Talk about the evidence of his guilt.The Maigne Event (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the first trial resulted in a hung jury (10-2 for conviction). Had he been acquitted, there would have been no second trial.  He was convicted of murder 2 in the second trial.  This is all in the article.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  01:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the result of Trial One, he was still convicted of murder, therefore he is an "American Murderer". =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Althea Gibson
Didn't realized that. Sorry. ///Euro Car GT 04:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No apology necessary; in the spirit of fairness I wanted to ping all participating parties. Thanks again. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  04:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your free Cochrane account is on its way!
Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to Cochrane Collaboration's library of medical reviews: Link to form.

If you have any questions, just ask me. Cheers, Ocaasi 13:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571781018 your edit] to Hollywood Walk of Fame may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In February 1956 a prototype was unveiled featuring a caricature of an example honoree John Wayne, by some accounts  inside a blue star on a brown background. However, caricatures proved too


 * I'm a bot bigot. Sorry, but I am.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bronze Medallion (New York City award), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wimbledon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Your involvement with DRN
Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Why IP editors don't cite sources
It occurs to me that at Hollywood Walk of Fame, one reason IP editors consistently don't cite sources is that if they add a URL, they're faced with a CAPTCHA. So they're penalized more for citing sources, than for not. IMHO there are two ways to fix that imbalance: either force CAPTCHAs for every IP edit, or force CAPTCHA if a URL is detected in an edit summary but not in the edit. We can't remove CAPTCHAs entirely, because then bots would run rather wildly rampant. Your thoughts? --Lexein (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoa, bots gone wild! Sounds like fun.
 * Are people of the IP persuasion really that lazy, that they can't be bothered to type a few characters into a CAPTCHA box? If they've already gone to the trouble of citing a source, how much more trouble is it to simply do the box too?  But assuming your theory is correct:  I'd love to see the first option implemented, but it might draw objections from the bleeding heart don't-discriminate-against-anybody-including-illiterates faction.  The second option, it seems to me, would solve the problem -- again, assuming that that IS the problem.  I don't see any downside to giving it a shot.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  23:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh - about rampant alleged bots, I forgot to link to WP:Archive.is RFC. RotlinkBot (or similar) was faced with CAPTCHAs, and either used a brute-force solver, or human solvers, to get past them. Without CAPTCHAs, there would have been tens of thousands of edits, rather than just hundreds. I'll look into option 2 - somebody might bite. --Lexein (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That's what she said. :-) DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hollywood Walk of Fame
I'm pleased we're hammering out changes which will improve a small section of the article. It's hard work. I can't say I'm not disappointed that you again cast little side aspersions about other editors' "interpretation of logic" (read: intelligence). And I honestly don't think I'm wrong about OR, so why persist in sticking pins in where they don't belong? I found it strange that though another editor proposed a language change or deletion of the paragraph, you took on me rather than them, when I agreed and made the edit. Perhaps you are unaware of how provocatively you use language when referring to other editors (or their comments) even as they try to hew to policy, guideline, MOS, logic, and sources. It's not about the editors, or you, it's about creating the best article possible. I hope you don't just delete this, but wth, it's your talk page. --Lexein (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, I was answering the other editor, not you -- you just wrote a reply before I did. Then you engaged and the other editor did not, so I answered you.  "Interpretation of logic" has nothing to do with "intelligence" -- that user invoked a dubious logical fallacy, and I called him on it.  (No response.)  And while I'm disappointed that you once again find my etiquette "disappointing", I sincerely hope that you never have a run-in with Eric Corbett; and I hope you will re-read the above note and realize how patronizing it sounds -- even if you didn't intend it to be.  Condescension is one thing I don't respond well to, especially from someone who is (I'm guessing) half my age -- which is why we locked horns in the first place, many moons ago.  Finally, you're right, it's all about the encyclopedia; and since you stated your opinion, I will state mine:  I don't think the change in question is an improvement.  While it follows all the rules, I think it blurs the simple fact that nobody knows where those two stars are.  Compulsive rule followers tend to forget the Fifth Pillar, WP:IAR.  Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive, since I'm the one who found the original Times reference and wrote the paragraph; but life is too short to argue against it any further, as I'm about to plunge into a GA review imbroglio that I'm not looking forward to.  You are right, you have been annoying; apology accepted.  And I hope you will accept my apology if you found me equally annoying.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. If you're over 100, then I'm half your age!(chuckle) Condescension was never intended (you surprised me there), but I see that it's easy to read in - oops. I have learned at WP, and struggle with, that the points we want to make in articles have to take a back seat to what we can source. Good chat. Here's to being annoying in a good cause. --Lexein (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ted Bundy
Hello DoctorJoeE, You may have noticed that I have had to revert two edits, from the same person, on the "Cause of Death" section on the Ted Bundy article. I am moving home on Friday and Susie and I are almost submerged in packing cases! Could I therefore ask that you keep a eye on any further edits on this subject? Sorry I have been unable to contribute to the number of victims debate, but info on this matter is somewhat scarce in the UK. Best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I did notice, and I will watch. Moves are never easy; I hope you have a smooth and uneventful one.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)
Books & Bytes Sign up for monthly delivery Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world. Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations... Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...  Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...  Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...   Read Books & Bytes , 16:48, 5 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 14:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ali
It doesn't necessarily correspond with the story of the paragraph, but (sorry for the typo) Ali did actually star in a major motion picture. So it cannot be said he was not in the industry. This is a relevant statement. Trackinfo (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, he was in a movie, but his star was awarded in the live performance category, "for living his life as live theatre". That is why the movie is irrelevant in this context.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  23:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Milton Berle". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 22:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=589392982 your edit] to Groucho Marx may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * NY Times Opinionator April 20, 20120 Retrieved 5/1/2012. George Fenneman, his radio and TV announcer, good-