User talk:DoctorJoeE/Archive 3

The fixers
I'd suggest reading this:

http://ladailymirror.com/2013/04/24/wikipedia-murder-and-myth-part-1/

In general its worth remembering that there is something of an industry in publishing highly scandalous (and completely untrue) material about Hollywood stars after they are dead. IF you are going to accuse someone as well documented as Albert R. Broccoli of manslaughter/murder you are going to need a better class of source.©Geni 19:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay -- first of all, the fact that untrue material has been published in the past says nothing about the veracity of this particular story. Second, I'm not accusing anyone of anything.  The article -- which was written long ago, by someone else -- doesn't accuse anyone either.  It cites an account in a book that qualifies as a reliable source, by an author of many books about Hollywood.  The accuracy of Fleming's research has never been questioned before, to the best of my knowledge.  (If you know of something, please point me to it.)  Third, you can't use an unreliable source (a blog) to discredit a reliable source.  Even if you could, the blogger's argument against the book as a whole has no merit.  (It can't be accurate because the NY Times didn't review it?  Since when?)  Fourth, who is the blogger?  He is a copy editor at the LA Times, according to their web site.  A copy editor?  Notice also that he has an obvious Wikipedia agenda -- he's not challenging the Healy story so much as how WP presents it.  His speculation that Fleming's source (an eyewitness) can't be believed because he might not have been in Hollywood at the time is ridiculous, and violates the most rudimentary WP standards that he deplores so deeply.  So I'm inclined not to discount The Fixers solely on his say-so.  The Forresters' book, which also mentions the Healy story, is not challenged, just "set aside" -- why? -- apparently he couldn't find a reason to discredit it.


 * All of that said, I don't like that section in the article the way it is either. Besides sourcing, I'm concerned about undue weight, and I had already planned to change the angle, i.e. this alternate story exists but the official story remains official.  My copy of Fleming's book is at home, and I think (hope) that I have a copy of the Forrester book as well -- I'm busy making a living at the moment, but I'll check tonight.  Film at eleven.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * criticism of sources should be considered from any venue. The real problem is the accusation against Albert R. Broccoli. It would be one thing to cover up a fight resulting in a death involving people who are either dead or in the background but Broccoli was active into the 80s. If there was anything to the story someone would have published it before now. The fact that they didn't suggest that it wouldn't stand up to a libel suit.©Geni 21:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Considered, and disregarded when it lacks merit. Forgive me, but I don't understand your argument on several levels:  Are you disregarding the possibility -- probability, actually -- that witnesses were unwilling to talk about the incident when the people involved were still alive?  The two books were published 8 or 9 years ago, and the fact that neither Fleming nor the Forresters were sued (AFAIK) suggests that it was at least not libelous, and probably true.  And why are you singling out Broccoli, as opposed to Beery, whom most average readers have actually heard of?  I'm in the process of running down some of Fleming's sources (the book is meticulously researched), and if any of the allegations are not supportable, I will remove them.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sued for what? You can't libel dead people. While "unwilling to talk about the incident when the people involved were still alive" is somewhat common in the UK in the US where public figures have a much harder time making libel claims that doesn't apply so much unless the claims are completely made up.Geni (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes and no -- the risks of being sued for libeling the dead (or on some end-run cause of action) are low, but not zero -- somebody accused Errol Flynn of being a Nazi after he died, and got his ass sued for it, to cite one of many examples. But that aside, friends & associates frequently refrain from spilling dirt about famous people -- true or untrue -- until after the person is dead. We didn't see a word in print about JFK's sexual exploits until a decade after he died, to again cite one of many examples.

But to the point: I spent the weekend digging up newspaper clippings and reading Cox & Terry's book, One Fine Stooge, as well as re-reading relevant passages from the Fleming and Forrester books. The following is a tentative summary of my take:
 * Healy, Beery, and Broccoli were nasty drunks. DiCicco was a gangster.
 * Healy had a fight with someone that night, but reports conflict on whether it was the Beery/Broccoli/DiCicco "gang".
 * From Cox & Terry: "Results of the autopsy were that Healy died of acute toxic nephiritis, caused by acute and chronic alcoholism, which weakened his heart, kidneys and liver. The coroner, Dr. A. F. Wagner, a surgeon who performed the autopsy in the presence of two Los Angeles police detectives, declared that no injury to the skull or brain had caused the comedian's death and signed the death certificate." Assuming that this is true (and we have no reason to assume otherwise), the fight between Healy and Beery/Broccoli/DiCicco, if there was one, was moot.
 * If Beery was involved, even if the autopsy cleared him, the MGM "fixers" probably still pulled strings to keep his name out of it. He was a major MGM asset.

None of this, obviously, can go into the article as is, because it's blatant WP:OR. I have some more reading to do, and once that is completed, and I figure out how to context all of this in an NPOV framework, I'll rewrite that paragraph, with all the appropriate cites. Fair enough? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable.Geni (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Doctor for a ton of amusement. Larry Harnisch is one of the top Los Angeles Historians.  The fact that you would challenge NEWSPAPER accounts over some tabloid books was just really a laugh riot!Finkellium (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you're pretty amusing yourself. I'm sure the Los Angeles Historians is one heck of a softball team.  I've written for NEWSPAPERS for 30+ years, and your assumption that NEWSPAPER accounts are infallible is touching.  But as WP editors we can't "challenge" anything -- our abiding principle is WP:NPOV.  So if another, verifiable account exists, I'm obliged to add it with the appropriate caveats; i.e. this alternate story exists but the official story remains official (as I wrote above).  Contrary to what Mr. Harnisch seems to believe, most WP editors WANT an article to be 100% accurate; very few have their own agendas (unlike Mr Harnisch).  Geni and I are just trying to get this article right, and I hope that we can continue to keep you amused in the process.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Since you profess to be a newsman yourself, and Harnisch is a KNOWN historian and writer, maybe you could out your real self to lend some credibility to your stories. Harnisch has provided so much provable information regarding the "Fixer's story" that it shows within a reasonable doubt that the story is false.  If you truly cared about your article being "right", you'd delete the speculation.  The book Hollywood Babylon is often quoted as a source, and EVERYONE knows it's bullshit.  Just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's true.  And your refusal to take suggestions and reverting to calling names and mocking professions is seriously childish. Zabadu (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If you had taken a moment to look at the article before firing your flames, you might have noticed that I have already fixed the Healy article. Well, not fixed, since it still needs a ton of work; but I did take everything out that cannot be properly sourced.  And just for future reference, you will find that you get a lot more done around here by being a little nicer and less aggressive.  When you get combative and start monologuing, people tune you out, or ignore you; or worse, conclude you have some POV agenda that you are trying to force on the rest of us.  This isn't a full time job for any of us, after all.  I hope that doesn't sound patronizing, and if it does, I apologize; just proffering a bit of friendly advice from someone who also started here with a bit of a wrong attitude.  All the best,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Says the man who fought and monologued every single criticism of his review. Again, your credibility would be so much better if you would just provide your credentials in comparison to the actual historian.  And since you've written for newspapers for 30+ years, but feel they aren't "infallible", I'd love to know which papers you've written for.  Because I know retractions are made every day and for every bad source or comment, there can be a retraction or explanation.  But you keep pumping that book.  Even the reviews on Amazon say the book is full of errors.  Using it as an "alternate story" is knowingly publishing a false statement.169.237.8.48 (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Says the anonymous aggressive internet person. I'm trying to include all published versions of the story; that's what WP:NPOV is all about.  We aren't allowed to render judgment on the reliability of sources here, the way bloggers are.  Did you read the paragraph in the article as it now stands?  The allegation is sourced, and I added that the source is uncorroborated.  I would be happy to add Harnish's objection to the veracity of that account if it were published in a reliable source, but WP guidelines prevent me from citing a blog.  What argument do you have with that, and why?  I always welcome CIVIL dialog; stop attacking me and address the content, please.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You like that word, aggressive. Unfortunately, you appear to not know what it means.  Harnisch has used actual news stories, which can be read in their original form.  Actual news stories ARE "published versions".  The Fixer's is full of documented errors - read the reviews.  Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Hollywood can pick the mistakes out.  Since all news reports, the coroner and the police department are documented stating this version is false, no matter how hard you try, one poorly written, self-published book is never going to be a good source.  Yes, I read your revision, and having that story in there is just wrong, considering it has actual news stories debunking it.108.211.81.131 (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And here we have yet another anonymous IP signature! What is that all about?  Whatever; please yourself -- I'll stick with the subject at hand.  The article presently says that three guys were alleged, by an uncorroborated source, to have beaten up Healy; but since the autopsy showed that he died of acute nephritis secondary to acute and chronic alcoholism, and his injuries had no bearing on his death, the fight, and anyone allegedly involved in it, is irrelevant.  You are saying, I think, that this is "just wrong".  What is wrong about it, and where are the "actual news stories" which prove it wrong?  Please enlighten me.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  03:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologies - I neglected to log in when I made the last two posts. They are mine.  "Actual news stories" are available with a quick search of Ted Healy on Google News Archive.  Here are just a few:

Ted .Healy .Death Is Attributed To Natural Causes' .Autopsy Shows ... news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19371223...‎ Autopsy Shows Bruises on Face Superficial and No Inquest Will Be Held. Los Angeles, Dec. 22 The— unexpected death of Ted Healy, film comedian, was due ... Lewiston Evening Journal ..Order Autopsy Be Performed On Ted ... news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1913&dat=19371222...‎ autopsy. termine whether Ted Healy, stage and screen comedian, died from effects of a fist fight which, police were climaxed a gay celebration of the birth of bis ...

Police Suspend Ted Healy Probe. - Google News news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19371222...‎ Los Angeles — Police said they would drop further investigation of a mysterious fist fight involving Ted Healy an autopsy indicated today that the film comedian ...

I say that continuing to post the "alternate" story is wrong as it has been disproven time and time again. For a 30+ year newsman, you certainly should know where to find this information. Zabadu (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is silly. Those news stories are already cited in the article -- by me.  They say (collectively) that the police dropped their investigation of the fight, and who was involved in it, since the autopsy showed that Healy didn't die of his external wounds, and the fight was therefore irrelevant to his death. And the article already says all that. It makes the murder allegation a non-issue, and I took it out.  It says nothing about the identities of Healy's assailants.  This is Journalism 101.  What I'm searching for now is documentation that Beery and DiCicco weren't there.  (Broccoli was there, by his own admission; he said he shoved Healy but didn't strike him, and that's in the article too.)  Such documentation would go a long way toward discrediting Fleming's account, and if I find it, it will go in the article as well.  If you find it, by all means, share it.     DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And the above statement is exactly why I know you haven't even looked at Harnisch's blog and articles in it. Do yourself a favor and take a glance.  http://ladailymirror.com/2013/05/10/wikipedia-murder-and-myth-part-12/ Zabadu (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you're exactly wrong. That's how this thread got started, way back at the top.  Have a look!  Yet again, I agree that the murder allegation is a non-issue.  That's why I took it out.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  01:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So you don't see where Harnisch completely clears Beery? Fleming's accounts have been discredited in every book he's written. That's why he self publishes. I give up.  You don't want to admit your source is invalid.Zabadu (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I deleted the Beery article entry too, which was evidently added by the same editor who added it in the Healy article. Here's what I can't seem to get across to you: I completely agree that Fleming had no factual basis for accusing anyone of murder, and whoever first added this material to the two articles was wrong as well.  I said that early in this thread, before we began talking.  And that's why I took it out of the articles, before we began talking.  I said I would add that there is no documentation that Beery or DiCicco were present, if I couldn't find any, and I couldn't, so I added that today.  Neither article accuses anybody of murdering Healy. Let's see if Harnisch acknowledges that both articles have been changed to reflect only what sources say, no more, no less.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for the corroboration that you 'edited newspapers'. You brought it up to disparage a source and to make yourself sound special. Well give. Otherwise we'll know that you are just another phony and likely Fleming himself.Finkellium (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, the troll returns. What I said is that I have written for newspapers for 30+ years, which is true.  My identity is irrelevant, because this is not about me, and you wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.  And no, I'm not Fleming, whom I'm not even sure is still alive.  Are you Harnisch?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Finkellium is not, nor has ever been a troll. I am not Harnisch, I am a fan and avid reader of his work.  It scares me that you are a regular contributor as your notes seem to indicate that you have no clue how to research. A cursory search shows Fleming is very alive and still writing, as I quoted above.  You made this about you, making disrespectful comments about Harnisch and anyone who questioned you.  Put up or shut up. I'm sure you've written for newspapers as much as I've done surgery (if you don't get that - not at all).  It's really sad to see.Zabadu (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So apparently you are the same person? If not sockpuppets, then certainly meatpuppets?  That's going to get you blocked, eventually.  Meanwhile, since neither of you seem to have anything to contribute at this point other than ad hominems, and since (take a look at my archive) I've been called much worse by much better than you, I'm going to remove anything further that you write here.  You could have at least acknowledged that I fixed the articles in question, before either of you began hurling insults, when nobody else would, but that would be too much to ask, I suppose.  All the best,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in these personal attacks and threats of banning and such. However, I did want you to know that, regarding the article, some sources have improved, yes, but there were still a few issues with Ted Healy and I've made some corrections. Nothing major, and I have noted them on the Ted Healy page. Any discussion of my edits over there should be made over there. This is just a note to let you know. Thanks. Clockster (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up, I already noticed. And thanks for the fine-tuning.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Clyde Sukeforth
Resigned as Dodgers coach....William 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The article has never said that he was fired. Resigned or fired, it still "cost him his job".  The cited sources says that, in those words.  I will re-cite that source.  Please don't edit war.  If you believe that this a point worth arguing, please make your case on the article's talk page and gain consensus before removing longstanding content again.  Thanks, 15:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You need a reference that says it cost him his job. At present the only one available says there is no such connection....William 15:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Long standing content that's wrong can be taken down anytime. Just like I did here. Here's a link to the 1953 news story. Totally unrelated at the 0:37-0:38 point of this video on Thomson's homerun there is a shot of a woman clapping. That's my mother....William 15:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the cite in the Sukeforth article is not the "only one available" -- as mentioned above, Greenspan's book, which is cited, says the decision "cost him his job", in those words. I will find a corroborating source, as time permits, so that there is no question, before I add it back.  I left a comment re: the "personal note" on your talk page -- hope that issue is resolved as soon as possible.  Best,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So far, I have this, from the SABR site: "Although Sukeforth stayed on with Brooklyn for the 1952 season as a coach, the Dodgers fired him when the season ended. Many blamed the Branca choice for his sacking by the Brooklyn brass." Since we know that he went to the Pirates for the '52 season, I'm not sure what to make of this.  The search goes on.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * SABR is wrong also. This article clearly written in January 1952 has Sukeforth resigning in 1952. So SABR is wrong when it says 'Although Sukeforth stayed on with Brooklyn for the 1952 season as a coach, the Dodgers fired him when the season ended'. Sukeforth had already started coaching for the Pirates in 1952'. Another newspaper article from January 1952 says Sukeforth was hired to coach Pittsburgh....William 18:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The book, The Team That Forever Changed Baseball and America: The 1947 Brooklyn Dodgers (Lyle Spatz, Ed.) also says he was fired (pp. 71-2). DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This site says the following: "Chuck [Dressen] bore a great deal of blame for choosing Ralph Branca to pitch to Bobby Thomson, who hit "The Shot Heard 'Round the World", a pennant-winning home run for New York. But the manager was relying on the testimony of bullpen coach Clyde Sukeforth, who reported that Carl Erskine was bouncing his curveball in warmups. Sukeforth was the scapegoat, losing his job at the end of the year."   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you notice something else about this site, it says 'When the Dodgers completed a sweep of the Giants on August 10 to increase their lead to a seemingly insurmountable 12 and one-half games, Dressen celebrated in the clubhouse, singing "The Giants is dead!" to the tune of "Roll Out the Barrel". This says the 'The Giants Dead is dead!' quote comes after a game played in 1953. That is a newspaper dated August 11 1953. If that source is wrong about when the Giants is dead, don't you think its possible its wrong about Sukeforth? I always put more weight on pre-internet sources written at the time an event occurs than one written years later....William 18:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not our job to decide which sources are more accurate than others, as I'm sure you know. If there is a conflict, you say that sources conflict.  The article you are relying on is essentially a primary source; of course Sukeforth was going to deny, at the time, that his resignation was related to the Shot.  I already have three sources, plus Greenspan's book, supporting the contention that the decision cost Sukeforth his job (whether he was fired or asked to resign is immaterial). Here is another article, from the LA Times, again stating repeatedly that Dressen put the blame on Sukeforth.  I'm going to check some books when I get home tonight, but unless I find a contrary statement strong enough to merit saying that sources conflict, I'm going to restore the deleted text, with the sourcing.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I just brought this to WikiProject Baseball for opinions....William 18:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ted Bundy
Hi DoctorJoeE, Just wanted you to know that I have reverted a load of unnecessary edits from User Ordessa from the Ted Bundy article. This rather pompous person appears to go through well constructive articles with edits of no importance. Hope to have your support. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You have it. I reverted an earlier series of useless edits by that same user yesterday.  If he/she continues I'll try leaving a talk page note, although drive-by users like that seldom pay any heed.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have already left a note on their Talk page, but another one from you might come in handy. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, what have I done wrong, exactly? I've added a little bit of information and perhaps not edited very parsimoniously, but I'm new here and I haven't gotten to grips with all the wiki tools yet. Sorry if I've ruffled you guys feathers, I only wanted to help. Also why are you calling me names? I don't act "pompously". I just try to do my best on a wiki format I'm not familiar with. We can't all be god-like beings like yourselves.Ordessa (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure why you are replying on my talk page, since I'm not the one who communicated directly with you; but since you're here, let me try to answer your question. While David might have been a bit guilty of biting a newcomer, his point is a valid one.  When you make a flurry of changes (especially within the lead) to an article that has been assembled carefully by a dedicated group of editors -- carefully enough to get it promoted to GA status -- you're bound to get some push-back.  Don't take it personally; communicating our thoughts is not easily done on the Internet, and any changes you make that are considered by others to be an improvement will be retained.  Also, don't think of editing as some sort of competition; we're all working toward the same goal, of producing a quality encyclopedia.  Every editor make honest mistakes; Lord knows I made a pile of them when I first started, and received ample feedback because of it.  I hope this does not discourage you from continuing here; as you get more familiar with the tools and techniques, you'll see fewer and fewer reverts.  If you have any questions or issues along the way, I'll be happy to help you in any way I can, as will most other editors.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

March GOCE copyedit drive
{| style="background-color: #dfeff3; border: 4px solid #bddff2; width:100%" cellpadding="5"


 * Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors



The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there!

– Your drive coordinators:, and To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)|}

Books & Bytes, Issue 4
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014 News for February from your Wikipedia Library. Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

IP sockpuppetry
I have just blocked the IP address 74.135.53.96 for disruptive editing. I see that you posted a message at User talk:74.135.53.96 in which you said that the same editor had previously been blocked under a different IP address. Do you know what IP address that was? If I can confirm that the same editor was previously blocked, I will consider whether to place a longer block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe he's referring to . That IP geolocates to Mount Vernon, Ohio; as does . Top pages edited for both IPs include Jeff Smith (chef), The Joy of Painting, and MotorWeek. What are the odds? The block should be extended from 48 hours to at least a month: the time of the other IP. Or longer, for block evasion. The same editor has also used . Doc   talk  09:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Doc -- I agree completely. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem! I'm looking at a few other IPs that are... "suspicious", and will likely list them here at some point (not in seeking blocks on them, as it's academic). In addition, I may create a SPI if I find plenty more good evidence for one. Hopefully will adjust the block before 48 hours is up. Cheers :)  Doc   talk  02:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I feel rather out of place here, being the only patient among so many doctors. However, thanks to both of you. I have checked the history of the three IP addresses mentioned, and there is no doubt whatever that they are the same person: geolocation to the same city, quite a number of the same articles edited (and not all on the same topic, as though we had different editors who happened to have a common interest), and the clearest evidence of all is repeating exactly the same edits on several articles. Not only is it clear that the IP address 98.28.115.67 has been used only by this one editor, but the IP range 98.28.115.0/24 (i.e. a block of 256 IP addresses including 98.28.115.67) has never been used by anyone else since August 2010, and since the present disruptive editor has been active for over three months, I have considered it perfectly safe to extend the one month block on that IP address to three months. The IP addresses 74.135.53.96 & 74.135.63.65 are not quite so straightforward. It is clear that only one person has used those particular addresses (with the possible but irrelevant exception of one edit in August 2013), but blocks on the individual IP addresses are likely to be ineffective, as the editor is likely to move to another address in the same range. All edits from the relevant range this month are from this person, but if we go back over a few months there are a few edits that aren't from the same person, and a few of those are constructive edits, so I would prefer not to place a range block for more than a month, which is what I have done. Having said that, the vast majority of edits are either from this editor or else vandalism from other editors, so the net effect of a longer range block stands to be a big positive, so if the problematic editing returns after the month is up, I will be willing to consider a longer range block. Please do let me know if you see any more from the same editor, either after the block expires or before that via other IP addresses. Also, if Doc9871 would like to let me know of the other "suspicious" IP addresses, I would be grateful. Even an IP address that has long since stopped editing can be useful to know about, as its editing history may point to other IP addresses that are still in use, or a larger IP range that needs looking at. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for handling that! I'm still digging, but two IPs that quickly come to mind are and . Yes, they're from Ohio, and they use the same ISP. But here's the really weird thing: using the (usually) trusty wiki stalker tool, I see that these two IPs edited the same obscure article that two of the above Ohio IPs did. Out of 22 different editors for a total of 38 edits... Odd. This is just the most glaring example, as there are more common articles that I believe can link these two IPs with the others, like  and . I will look for more.  Doc   talk  09:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I see enough there to raise questions, but not enough to prove a connection. Let me know if you see anything more definite. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you. I assumed good faith, per protocol, at the outset of this episode -- but it now seems clear that this is not simply some dope who doesn't understand how WP works, but a deliberate vandal.  Eventually (when time permits) I'm going to request that one of you IP experts explain to me how you geolocate these guys and otherwise root them out.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  12:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Checking geolocation is super easy for any non-admin. When you check the user contributions for an IP (e.g., ), at the bottom of the page it reads "[WHOIS · rDNS · Traceroute · Geolocate (Alternate) · Tor check · Current blocks · Global contributions] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]". Just click the fourth link from the left and you'll get . This works with any IP. Cheers :)  Doc   talk  05:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Doc -- I thought there was a lot more hocus-pocus to it. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=602329164 your edit] to Jonathan Pollard 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7181277.stm Spy case still makes waves in Israel], Martin Patience January 15, 2008, BBC News''

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with reversion of minor paragraph changes in D. B. Cooper
Good morning. I noticed that you'd reverted a few minor paragraph-sectioning changes to the D. B. Cooper article. I disagree. Normally I would just let it slide, but this way I can procrastinate on tax preparation, and anything is better than 1040 paperwork! Here are the reasons why I disagree:

Point 1: It is true that very short paragraphs are generally frowned on in style teaching, but they are not outlawed. In fact, WP's own article on paragraphs says "A common English usage misconception is that a paragraph has three to five sentences; single-word paragraphs can be seen in some professional writing, and journalists often use single-sentence paragraphs." What is more important is that the paragraph make sense. This applies to situations such as the D.B. Cooper article, where one or two sentences were stuck in other paragraphs that didn't deal with the same content.

Point 2: Don't misquote a Wikipedia policy to justify a reversion. Manual of Style does not, as far as I found, have any recommendation for paragraph length (remember, trying to avoid tax prep; also curiosity).

Point 3: Sometimes little stuff comes down to individual style, which needs to be left alone. Editors should tread lightly where possible, especially with good faith edits. As dictated in Etiquette, "Avoid reverts whenever possible".

Point 4: Following up behind someone to revert minor changes like that seems, well, petty. There are many WP articles that truly need editing, which would be a better use of your time.

I welcome further discussion, if you are interested or similarly trying to procrastinate :-)

— Molly-in-md (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. Concerning your points:

If you enjoy copy editing, may I suggest that you consider joining the Guild of Copy Editors, of which I am a member. Cheers, DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Point 1: You are correct that one-sentence paragraphs are not outlawed, but I never said they were; I said they were "frowned on" -- which leads to:
 * Point 2: MOS does indeed have recommendations for paragraph length. The one relevant to this discussion: "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text."  As Casey Stengel said, you can look it up.
 * Point 3: You are right, "sometimes little stuff comes down to individual style, which needs to be left alone". However, you chose not to leave it alone, and I reverted it, because in my opinion it should be left alone.  If you feel strongly that these minor changes need to be made, you are welcome to make your case on article's talk page, and attempt to get consensus for your changes.
 * Point 4: I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. While I was there, I saw a red link that needed to be removed, so I removed it.  What is your objection to that?  As for your second sentence, I agree completely.  Rather than making minor (dare I say drive-by?) edits on a stable FA article, there are many WP articles that truly need editing, which would be a better use of your time.
 * Oops! After hitting "send" I discovered that you're already a GOCE member.  Thanks for your service.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 5, March 2014 by ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * New Visiting Scholar positions
 * TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
 * Australian articles get a link to librarians
 * Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Dale Carnegie in Japan
The research on Dale Carnegie in Japan has taken three years of work to piece together. Obviously, it is original research and based on the existing documents and interviews. If you have facts or data that contradict what is there, then please correct it and quote your sources - don't just delete the whole thing ot the information is lost to everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregstory (talk • contribs) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You cannot simply cut and paste a huge section of company web site content into a Wikipedia article. It violates multiple basic WP rules, not least of which is WP:SPAM.  I see that another editor has already reverted your attempt to reintroduce that material, so you are now at 2RR.  Do it again and you will be edit warring, and subject to an immediate block.  If you feel that this material deserves to be in the article, please make your case on the article's talk page, rather than initiating an edit war. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes -- I forgot to mention that original research (WP:OR) is also forbidden on Wikipedia. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Failure opening DRN discussion
I tried to open discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard. I am on the list at DRN/V, but the bot didn't open it, and in fact when I manually changed the discussion to "open" the bot changed it back to "needs assist". Any suggestions? --Bejnar (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's odd... It let me in, when I tried just now. Do you have any editing restrictions?  You might check with one of the experts, e.g.  or .  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm no expert on geek stuff. My on-call tech person is, or maybe is back from vacation. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's just that the posting is more than a week old, so the bot makes it a higher priority than just "open". Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

thank you!!
thought it was my machine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.68.228 (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I assume you're referring to restoration of the Bass Reeves photo to manageable size. No problem.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=607626480 your edit] to Jason Moss (writer) 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * amp;p_field_date-0=YMD_date&amp;p_params_date-0=date:B,E&amp;p_text_date-0=1/1/2006%20to%201/1/2007 &amp;xcal_numdocs=20&amp;p_perpage=10&amp;p_sort=YMD_date:D&amp;xcal_useweights=no LV ''Review-

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609980796 your edit] to Milton Berle 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Victoria, and his biological son, Bob Williams. (His adopted son, Bill, died in 1989.)  http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/28/arts/milton-berle-tv-s-first-star-as-uncle-miltie-dies-at-93.html?

Books & Bytes, Issue 6
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 6, April-May 2014 by ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
 * TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
 * TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
 * New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the User WPMed template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors
Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with Birch Society Page
You recently reverted an edit I made to the Birch Society page; can you explain why or edit the page to insert the valuable, accurate information I added? There is indeed a widespread impression that the Birch Society is “radical right.” But when most people think of the "radical right" they instinctively think of the religious right and Republican Party. I can supply you with endless examples of the fact that the JBS has been consistently and vehemently critical the GOP for decades both for doling our billions in corporate welfare and for waging unconstitutional military operations, both overt and covert, all over the world. On both of these issues they align with liberals and progressives on the left (though they would part with the left on what to do once the troops were home). Did you know this? If it is true, do you agree it is worth noting on the Wiki page? If so, I can supply endless links directly to their website and literature to prove this. Thank you. Brian 67.189.166.173 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Your most recent edit was actually reverted by K6ka -- but he reverted (as he explained) for the same reason I did -- the edit does not adhere to WP:NPOV or WP:OR. You have to cite at least one reliable source.  You cannot draw your own conclusions, nor synthesize material from several sources to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources.  Also, the JBS website does not qualify as WP:RS.  If you have such a source for the information, feel free to add the material back, with the citation(s).  That's no guarantee that someone won't revert it again, of course -- you may have to make your case on the article's talk page and gain consensus for the change.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply Doc. I'm probably not understanding some nuance of Wiki's protocols, but I just don't have the time or energy to devote to the question now. On the surface, it seems to me that if dozens of examples directly from the Birch Society itself agreeing with the political left and vehemently criticizing GOP politicians about foreign policy and corporate welfare doesn't qualify as a "reliable" source to prove that they agree with the left on those issues, then there's something wrong with the protocols. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to question and criticize the JBS, but their perspective on politics is that both political parties have been co-opted by greedy, powerful special interest groups. Whether the folks who police Wiki's content care or not, the fact remains that the vast majority of Americans don’t understand that. They have a decidedly false impression about the JBS because they have never actually read any of their material themselves, and they are surprised when I show them the actual articles they publish. It's not a conspiracy in the sense that a Deep Throat gets on conference call weekly to issue master orders; it's more like a dozen Mafia families running around DC who would just as soon cut each other's hearts out if it meant more power for their group, but none of them can risk cutting off the flow of ungodly power and money to DC that they thrive on, so they are forced to not rock the boat too much. It is my personal theory that, while the evil is real - the middle class is reeling and the rich are in fact getting richer - the universe and our Constitution are designed like a mirror to give us the hell we keep electing until we learn enough to stop electing politicians who promise to fix so many of the very real problems inherent in being human from DC. The law of human nature ensures that such power will always be abused. Obama was elected because we desperately needed hope and change and the GOP offered none (save for Ron Paul; he is hardly perfect, but he was the only candidate to say he didn't want to be President to run our lives!). But the hope and change we really need is not the top down, federally imposed nightmare Obama and the Dems offer. (Nancy Pelosi says artists should concentrate on their art and let society pay for their healthcare; then again, she also said we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it!) The hope and change must eventually begin in your heart and mine and radiate outward through our family and neighborhoods, to be reflected back in our political institutions. This does not mean a weak fedgov, just a much smaller, less intrusive, less expensive one. We need a strong fedgov, strong unions, and a strong free market to offset each other, but collusion between any two is not healthy. State governments have plenty of room to experiment with socialism, and on that level, a healthy amount of such government may work well.

Sorry to ramble, I have to go - the government forced me out of business four years ago and we're desperately trying to fix up and sell the home before the last of the IRAs run out and while we still have a credit score. Best, Brian67.189.166.173 (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

¿== Florence Foster Jenkins ==

Greetings. First, thank you for referring to my edits as "good faith". The edits that I made to the Florence Foster Jenkins were authored by Donald Collup who wrote and produced the authoritative documentary on her life called Florence Foster Jenkins: A World of her own. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1913025/) He based his information on interviews with people who knew her and who had actually been at the Carnegie Hall concert. He also had a taped interview with Kathleen Bayfield, the wife of St. Clair Bayfield, Ms. Jenkins companion and manager. So everything that we put in was true, but I don't know how to document it unless we can refer to the documentary. Mr. Collup has never used Wikipedia (and I have had little experience with it) but he is distressed with the number of errors on her page and would like to have the record set straight. What do you suggest? I would appreciate any help you can give me. Thank you. --Grandtierbox (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. I reverted your edit not because I didn't believe the information to be true, but because no source was cited to back it up.  Now that I know that there's a source for the material, it might just be do-able.  According to WP:RS, a video documentary can qualify as a reliable source: "...audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist."  Lo and behold, A World of Her Own appears to fit those criteria, and is available for sale on Amazon.  I have just ordered myself a copy -- once I've had a look at it, I'll figure out the best way to properly cite it as WP:RS, and then I'll restore your content.  Okay?   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  04:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding so quickly. I think what you have suggested is perfectly understandable and reasonable, and I look forward to hearing back from you. Thank you again!--Grandtierbox (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Give me a bit of time -- I'll be out of the country for 10 days, followed by the inevitable catching-up game -- but it will get done, I promise. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@undefinedgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ramirez
Hey, DoctorJoeE! I hope all is well - it's been awhile! Thanks for cleaning up the Richard Ramirez section. The vast majority of the cleanup was a good improvement; but I have two very small issues. Both are related to the Holiday Inn incident. Now, Ramirez had bound the woman, but was not technically "raping" her (as the change suggests). He was trying to rape her, but got interrupted. On p.225 of Carlo it states:
 * "After Richard tied her up, he pulled off her undergarments and was attempting to have sex with her when the door opened and the woman's husband walked in."

And the fact that the husband basically beat the living crap out of Ramirez also got removed.
 * "He went berserk, attacking Richard with fists and feet. Richard tried to fight back, but he weighed only 120 pounds and the husband was thick and bull-like. He beat Richard to the floor, knocked him out, then beat and kicked him some more. He untied his wife and called the front desk which summoned the police. Richard remained unconscious and bleeding, his face swollen all out of proportion. He had two huge black eyes and was almost unrecognizable. He was handcuffed and arrested. Taken to the hospital before jail, he was treated for a concussion and given thirty stitches to close up a gash inside his mouth."

Thanks again for helping the article out! Maybe we can get this further expanded and improved. Cheers :> Doc   talk  03:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies -- guess I was a bit hasty. Will put those bits back in forthwith.  The article does need work -- I had planned to work on it the last time you mentioned it, way back when -- but I got interrupted midway through the Night Stalker book by some distraction that I can't even recall now.  Best laid plans, and all that.  So many articles, so little time ...  Off to Zagreb and then Dubrovnik tomorrow night for a story; I'll try to get back to it when I return.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  04:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No apologies! You cleaned it up very nicely! I'm not the best at writing prose; and it flows better now that you've improved it. Cheers :) Doc   talk  05:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Ramirez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polaroid (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) 08:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

BMJ
Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to BMJ's library: link to form. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter
 Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 1, June/July 2014 by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery



This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice. note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
 * WHO's list of Essential Medicines
 * Neglected tropical diseases
 * Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

I've () taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
 * IEG grant

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
 * Wikimania 2014

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
 * Integration progress


 * Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
 * Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
 * Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
 * Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
 * Integration guides

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here

News in short


 * To come
 * Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
 * Proofreading drives


 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

I would like to know what business you have in changing the history of Dr John Snow. Also, why you do not want your readers to know that descendants of this person also work in public health, afterall, it is only a google click away thanks

susiedarling

Thanks, I read your claim the first edit was info already in article. I disagree. Facts in previous article were not clear and I made them clear with my proper description of the history. As for the irrelevance you claim regarding descendants of Dr John Snow, I have noticed that in many wiki article there are notes about descendants. This doctor is supposedly now quite famous and well respected, and a google search will unveil the fact that a number of his descendants are working in public health. Who are you to decide that this should be hidden from the public on wiki. Some people think wiki is merely a place where commercial interests buy pages to write anything they please to further their own businesses. Perhaps that is true. I recall a while back the head of one of our parliaments talking about Dr John Snow's descendants, but no talk allowed here eh. Interesting Thanks susiedarling


 * "What business do I have?" Well, the same business you or anyone else has; we are all (supposedly) working toward the same goal of improving the encyclopedia.
 * First point: You "disagree" that the content you added was already in the article -- yet there it is -- in two separate locations. If your goal is to summarize that information, then it should be in the lead, which is where I will put it, as soon as I finish this reply.  Hopefully you will agree that that is a more appropriate location for it.
 * Second point: The fact that some of Snow's descendants work in public health is of marginal relevance at best; but if you insist on including it, you will have to provide a source for it. Saying that it is "only a google click away" doesn't cut it.  Everything added to an article must be properly sourced.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I appreciate the acknowledgement. It was my pleasure.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Gender identity
Thanks for working towards a useful compromise on the D B Cooper article. Now that it's sorted, I'd give some friendly encouragement to skim Gender identity before editing any similar content, should it come up again - I don't know how much of the Chelsea Manning page-move imbroglio you caught at the time, but to the outside world Wikipedia came out of it quite badly, as random editors vocally tried to argue things out from first, instinctive principles, often quite tactlessly. The fact that we've got a clear MOS:IDENTITY exception about this does, I think, show that it's a big deal. --McGeddon (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I've read the article, and unfortunately I can't say that I know any more now than I did before.  When I was a med student a couple of eons ago, GID (or transsexualism, as it was then called) was classified as a mental illness (as was homosexuality, although most of us realized intuitively that that was absurd).  Specifically, it was considered a form of delusion, and my understanding is that a component (how large I don't know) of the psychiatric community still holds that view. My sense is that the issue is way more complex and multifaceted than most of us realize -- and the Bradley/Chelsea Manning brouhaha is exponentially more complex than that, for obvious reasons. Things will improve when the impossibly vague "biological and sociocultural influences" pseudo-etiology is replaced with something more definitive, but I don't see that happening until a lot more data is in.  There is increasing concern -- according to a family counselor friend of mine -- about the approach to GID in young children, particularly in light of data suggesting that gender dysphoria disappears in a significant percentage of those kids as they get older.  Wiki-wise, I think I'll let more enlightened editors handle this issue in the future.  I look forward to working with you on something a bit more gender neutral. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Snyder TV show
I can send you the Youtube link of this show that Dietrich appeared on with Kiss as proof if you wish'Respectfully Dick Brookz Houdini Museum magicus@comcast.net


 * I'm sure she did appear, but the subject of that particular paragraph is the drunken mayhem caused by Ace Frehley et al during that show; Dietrich's appearance is irrelevant to that description, and did not contribute to making that episode "infamous". All the best,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 7, June-July 2014 by, ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
 * TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
 * Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
 * Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Feder
Good work with that. I've actually corresponded with him in the past. I've bought a couple of editions of his book but the newest is far too expensive for me to justify. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. He seems like a very interesting character; I'd love to meet him someday. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)