User talk:DoctorJoeE/Archive 5

Please stop making things up a talk Burma
First you make things up at Talk:Burma/Myanmar and now you're at Talk:Burma doing it again. Please stick to the facts. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please drop it. You disagreed with my statement that most English-speaking international news media officially refer to the country by the name Myanmar, and another editor pointed out that the article itself now says that.  Another editor mentioned that Google returns 3 times as many results for Myanmar, and Google News returns 15 times as many.  If you don't like the way the RM discussion is going, stop attacking me and make your case!  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lying again... I did not disagree that most English-speaking international news media officially refer to the country by the name Myanmar, nor did I say disagree that Google returns 3 times as many results for Myanmar. You must be thinking of someone else or you simply can't tell the truth. I'm not sure where this is coming from and it's why I threw up my hands until you mentioned it again. Try to get your facts straight before spreading more and more falsehoods. And the RM is going fine in my opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. I've already asked you what I said that was "false", and you merely pointed me to Talk:Burma/Myanmar, where you said, "American media split the difference before so nothing new there, however UK did not, being almost completely in the Burma camp media-wise."  So you did disagree.  What else is there?  I'll ask again: Exactly what did I write that you consider "false"?  And if you don't cease the personal attacks immediately, I'm going to seek administrative assistance.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  23:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can go through it again, but if you continue to lie about it i will call you out. First we had someone say "Myanmar because of (higher usage, recognizability, local's choice, status quo, ambiguity...)" You completely agreed with this and I corrected the fact that the locals do not prefer Myanmar over Burma, and the name Burma is more recognizable but used less and less. Later you again said WP should call it Myanmar because of "higher international usage, name recognition, local preference, status quo, minimization of ambiguity, etc., etc." Again I corrected those two items figuring you missed the first correction. I didn't say I didn't agree with you that it was time to call it Myanmar, we just have to use the truthful reasons.
 * You complained again and I mentioned "I never said I was for or against keeping it at Burma. I simply implied that if you are going to try and make a point it would help if things weren't made up. The statement was corrected (when said by someone else) yet you used it again. A slip or deliberate doesn't matter at this time, it was in error and I corrected it." Flash forward to the talk:Burma page and you interject that you agreed with what I said but that people didn't listen to you at talk:burma/myanmar. I said it was mainly one stubborn editor but that those false statements you made didn't help your point. You claimed you didn't understand (I have no idea how) but I told you to check talk:burma/myanmar where your facts were wrong in your previous attempts. You said you would stand by all your statements (of which some were false) at which point I said "Which was why we threw up our hands over there when we realized you would never grasp it." We simply were not seeing eye to eye on the false statements by you. Two days later you post "As this discussion shows, I'm not the one who is failing to grasp" implying that that the discussion is showing you are correct in your false statements, which it does not show, and that it's against my own views on the subject... views you seem to have conveniently missed. In other words, fabricating more stuff.
 * At that point you brought up WP:IJDLI. While it's true that IJDLI if someone continually present falsehoods, I don't really care what happens in the RM. Just so long as things are factual and on the straight and narrow, I'm good with it. These things seem to sort themselves out at wikipedia. But the IJDLI made me bring this to your talk page so as not pollute the Burma page anymore than necessary. And here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see; and now it's here for anyone to see (as corroborated by an admin) that your concept of "lying" is a sincere difference of interpretation, or possibly, at worst, a good-faith mistake. "Lying" and "misspeaking" are not one and the same.  I would appreciate it if you would stay off my talk page.  Any further personal attacks from you will be deleted and reported.  I refuse to be dragged into name-calling.  I have nothing further to contribute at the Burma page, which will hopefully soon be the Myanmar page, so we should have no need to interact further.  Best of luck in your future editing endeavors.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Could
You had mentioned an interest in working on Cancer of unknown primary origin. Could you take a look at it now? I think the other editor is done with the source-shifting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure -- I will have a look in the next day or two, as time permits. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ed Gein
My source is Clifford Banks who found Henry Gein's body with hypodermic needle marks in his arms. There was no fire! Ed reported Henry missing and a search party, including my Great Uncle, Clifford Banks, was formed. My edit was 100% fact.

My Grandmother was from the Plainfield area.

Her Sister the late Effie(Nigh)Banks, wife of Clifford Banks lived on 2nd Ave, down the road a ways from the Gein farm. Part of their land joined Gein's land. In fact Effie and her daughter Rosie, were on Ed's list of women to kill. Ed even dug up a cousin of ours and that cousin's baby.

My source, while not having a Wikki page that can be cited, is the late, Clifford Raymond Banks.

This whole fire business was started by a Judge who wrote a book, with inaccurate information in it; such as Henry dying in a fire.

RustyW2 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)RustyW2RustyW2 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * None the less, you need to supply confirmed reliable published sources for any information to be included in the article. Please read WP:OR for further information. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As David says, we unfortunately cannot use verbal sources; they must be published, per Wikipedia guidelines. WP rules can be frustrating sometimes, but we have to abide by them.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  23:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Hypodermic needle marks in his arms"? Was he a "junkie" in 1944, in rural Wisconsin? Bizarre, unreferenced claims have no place on this site. "Effie and her daughter Rosie, were on Ed's list of women to kill. Ed even dug up a cousin of ours and that cousin's baby." What "list to kill"? What "baby"? This is just trolling. Doc   talk  07:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In all fairness, Doc, IV drug abuse is nothing new -- it dates from at least the Civil War, and maybe earlier. There's no question that none of that stuff is addable to the article unless there is WP:RS for it -- but trolling?  I realize that your "troll intuition" has proved better than mine in the past -- but I don't get that sense in this case. We should assume good faith until there is tangible evidence to the contrary.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Underworld
Lovely bit of prose on my edit to SHRTW, thankee. I'm only 254 pages in! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cullen
Do you have a reason for reverting my changes? The paragraph that I removed is unsourced and parts of it are clearly false. The sentence "He was always seated while hosting, even on shows where other participants stood", is clearly false because he stood at his podium on the game show Blockbusters and Child's Play. The sentence "His physical disabilities were (and largely remain) unknown to the general public due in large part to directors taking great care to ensure that Cullen was never shown walking on camera", is highly questionable because he was shown walking on camera rather frequently. He walked onto the set of Blockbusters, where his disability could at times be detected. He was also shown walking on camera on Tattletales and I've Got a Secret.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, the edit that you made is in no way a minor edit as you had marked it.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

While I do believe that it would be best if the paragraph was removed entirely since it is not sourced, if the paragraph is to stay in place the first sentence should be worded "...directors taking great care to limit the extent that Cullen was shown walking on camera", in order to make it accurate. The last two sentences need to be removed entirely as they are inaccurate. As I explained earlier, Cullen was not always seated while hosting. As for the final sentence, Cullen was not always near where he was seated when standing or walking on the set, though the camera may not have been on him for the full time he was walking.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You may have noticed by now that I have sourced the paragraph removed by you and restored by me, and explained why. I reverted and then sourced simply because that was an easier way to do it.  My reason for reverting was that you provided no source material to contradict the established content; we can't simply take your word for it that the established content is incorrect.  (BTW a straight revert is considered a minor edit, and automatically tagged as such by Twinkle, because there is no net change to the content.)  As I said in the edit summary, if you have source material that contradicts the established content and the source I cited, please share it with us.  DoctorJoeE &nbutions/DoctorJoeE|review transgressions]]/ talk to me!  16:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are several links to videos of Blockbusters which show him walking onto the set and standing at his podium: vsp;[[Special:Contrib, as well as several links to videos of Child's Play where he is shown standing at his podium: . Here is a link to a video of a Tattletales episode that he is on where he is shown walking (albeit fairly briefly) and is not all that close to where he would sit . Since the last two sentences in the text are verifiably wrong, I will remove them and reword the first sentence in the way that I had suggested earlier.--[[User:Tdl1060|Tdl1060]] (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your latest edit is certainly better than that original wholesale removal; but there are still a few issues to resolve: (1) Sources need to be cited in-line, not in the edit summary; (2) YouTube is considered a gray-area source; and (3) the videos you linked above do not show exactly what you claim they show. In the Blockbusters clips, he takes literally one step after the logo is raised, and then sits (not stands) at the podium. In the Child's Play clips he may be standing at the podium -- it's hard to tell -- but he it is clear that he is "hidden on set behind a board closest to his podium so that he would only have to take a minimum number of steps", just as described in the article.  In the Tattletales clip, he is not shown walking -- he and his wife are kept stationary as the other two couples walk to their audience sections, and then Ludden and Woolery can be seen walking toward the podiums just before the commercial break, but not Cullen, who is shown seated at his podium as taping resumes after the commercial.  So I've made a couple of changes and sourced some of the YouTube clips in-line (let's hope no one objects), and I hope that compromise is acceptable to you.  If not, please make your case on the article's talk page.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the current version. However, in the Blockbusters clips he does take more than literally one step after the logo is raised but I will agree that he is "hidden on set behind a board closest to his podium so that he would only have to take a minimum number of steps". That was a sentence that I had no problem with. Furthermore, while the camera frame and the fact that his podium is in the way may make it difficult to tell whether he is sitting or standing on the Blockbusters set most of the time, in this clip in the seconds following 11:35, one can tell that he is standing . Moreover, in this Child's Play clip there is no question as to whether he is standing behind his podium, because one can clearly see his legs behind the podium at 9:47 and the seconds following . As far as Tattletales is concerned, he is shown walking in the seconds following 0:07, albeit only about a step or two before the camera cut away, and far less than the other couples who were contestants on this episode . Either way, I'm fine with the current version, so it's a moot point.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on the Tattletales thing, but thanks for working with me to arrive at a mutually agreeable edit. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  01:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Dyslexia
''Hey everybody! I've just started a GAR on dyslexia due to some concerns I have about the article. More comments and help with the article would be welcome! Best, Keilana|Parlez'' ... hi Doctor JoeE, an editor has started a reassessment of the article for GA, however I don't think the points raised are valid, what should I do?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You should take up your concerns directly with Keilana. One wonders why these questions weren't raised at the time of the original GAR, which wasn't that long ago -- but any GA can be reassessed at any time, and now is as good a time as any.  I do agree that the article needs a general copyedit -- I mentioned it myself in the past, when I fixed a few isolated issues, but I simply didn't have the time to do a proper rewrite. It's on my list, and I hope to get to it fairly soon, when real-world duties are a bit less pressing.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Mail
--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"WP convention is to include nicknames"
Unfortunately many people think this is the case and this treating of readers as morons is increasing. However, WP:MOSBIO disagrees. It is acceptable to put a stage name after the dates, but it is far from necessary if the name appears in the article title and nicknames should certainly not appear in the middle of the full name. It's a trend that is in need of reversal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't find any "quite specific" prohibition of nicknames in WP:MOSBIO. The closest I could find was, "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name" -- which is quite a way from "nicknames should certainly not appear". It's also worth noting that professional names are not synonymous with nicknames.  Bud Abbott was known professionally and personally as Bud, in the same way that everyone knows James Earl Carter, Jr. as Jimmy.


 * While I can't disagree that nicknames are "not always necessary", is the point important enough to warrant eliminating them from literally hundreds (or thousands) of articles, only to watch them creep back in? Assuming that you think it is, you might consider trying to gain consensus for a wholesale change, rather than undertaking it unilaterally and, perhaps, discovering that not everyone considers it as good an idea as you do.  I've been doing this long enough to find that changes that appear ineluctable to me are often anything but.  Example: I and others thought it rather obvious that the Burma article should be moved to Myanmar, given that the country itself has been known officially as Myanmar for almost 27 years -- until we opened a hornet's nest by suggesting it.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing unilateral about it. There's already consensus that nicknames should not be included within full names. You'll notice that if you look at WP:MOSBIO that this construction is used nowhere. There's not so much problem with them being used after the individual's dates, but it's rarely necessary if that version of the name appears as the article title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, I can't really disagree - though I haven't seen any evidence of this "consensus" that you speak of (which doesn't mean it's not there, of course). My hunch is that editors will gradually add them back, but we'll see.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  23:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do with wikipedia
I'm the survivor of 4 separate malignant melanomas and a patient of Dr. Harold Rabinovitz of the U of Miami if you don't remember. Anyway back in the days I had my first melanoma biopsies (1993 and 94) come back I had some wider excisions done by a Plas. surgeon who since lost his medical license. His care of me was fine, but Mark Schreiber is back in the news As for what, Oi Vei is all I say and I'm Roman Catholic....William 19:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I know somewhat more about this yahoo than most, or than I really want to. A friend of mine was on the Florida State Board when he first came to their attention in the '90s.  He vehemently opposed the Board's initial disciplinary decision (a wrist slap), and was proven right, unfortunately, after he killed a couple of people.  I know that hindsight is an exact science, but they waited way too long to get him off the streets. His diagnosis is fairly obvious, at least to me, but if I told you here (publicly), I might run into trouble with the WP:BLP police.


 * One thought, after reading through this latest grotesque scenario, in a long line of them -- without any inference of blaming the victim, and with appropriate empathy for his current situation, you have to question the intelligence of the patient in question: He goes to an unlicensed practitioner (presumably after legitimate people advised him to leave well enough alone) to have Mr. Happy inflated with goodness knows what sort of filler material -- and then, when that turns out badly, he goes to another unlicensed practitioner, seeking to have the process reversed!  What could possibly go wrong?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Myanmar
Hi, I saw your reply on the Burma->Myanmar move and thought I'd reply here instead. I don't see why the RM discussion for an article should take place anywhere besides its own talk page. Considering the fact that at least two of the participants in the RM are admins (and they are fine with it being conducted on the Burma talk page), it should be OK to cast your vote there.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A message within the article's talk page box reads, "Discussion of the title should be kept at Talk:Burma/Myanmar." I assume that a separate talk page was created expressly for RM discussions so that the normal talk page could be reserved for routine article improvement dialog, but I don't know for sure. That decision was made some time ago, without my input.  I suspect that someone will soon copy the current RM discussion over to Talk:Burma/Myanmar, because that's what has happened in the past. If you feel strongly that that should not happen, you will need to take it up with whoever moves it. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Do Cowboys Ride? -- Is That What They "Do"?
Regarding your rather, I dare say "somewhat snarky" edit-summary remark accompanying your edit of Shane on 2015-08-07: "Cowboys ride; that's what they do" --- Gee! - I didn't know that. And, having grown up in Wyoming, about a day's ride on horseback from where the film was shot in 1951, am really glad that you enlightened all of us. (I have a very fond childhood memory of being taken there by my parents --- in a car, not on horseback --- to watch for a couple days, while Geo. Stevens and a bunch of Hollywood city-slickers that couldn't shoot or ride very well were filming on location up in Jackson Hole.) As for your and my respective edits, however, you might have noted (though apparently not) that my proximate edit, just prior to your edit, had to do with repetitive use of the same wording in two consecutive paragraphs, not whether cowboys ride or not. You a cowboy? --- Professor JR (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Dare I say that you're being a trifle over-sensitive? Of course I noticed that you were eliminating a repetitive verb - even though the same verb separated by an entire paragraph is not the most vile grammatical sin ever. You might have noted (though apparently not) that I did not change it back -- I just went with something less boring and pedestrian. Cowboys didn't go to town, they rode to town -- hence the (mildly clever, I thought) edit summary. No one would confuse me with a cowboy, although I do ride, and my daughter trains horses professionally. You were fortunate to have watched Shane being filmed. Unfortunately, the western movie is a dead genre; only one decent one (Unforgiven) has been made in the last 50 years or so. BTW, no need to ping me on my own talk page. Cheers, DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Stones on Sullivan
The Rolling Stones appeared on the Sullivan show six times total, with the last two times being the mentioned January 15, 1967 performance where the lyrics to 'Let's Spend the Night Together' where altered, and the appearance of November 18, 1969. They did not appear on the show between these two days. The reference given is false. See: http://www.nzentgraf.de/books/tcw/works1.htmHeteren (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The place to make your case is on the article talk page, not mine. And there is nothing on the link you cited (a list of books and fanzines) that supports your version of events. You have to cite a specific page in a specific reliable source.  Please don't revert again unless you can do that.  I will check the cited Sullivan biography tonight (the book is at home), and if the citation is incorrect I will change it.  It's a small point, and you could be right, but we can't just take your word for it.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Checked the source, corroborated it, made the change with additional citation. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA
You realise it's giving an example saying that no comma separating the year on both ends is wrong and that when written as "October 1, 2011" there needs to be a comma at both ends of "2011" so that it gets written as "October 1, 2011," right? It's only saying that, when written as "October 1, 2011" not having the comma at the end of 2011 is wrong. It is NOT saying that proper sentence structure should be ignored.

When writing in proper English (which is what we should be using on wikipedia), here is when you use commas (and you can look this up to see that I'm right and check with the good people at Manual of Style if you wish):


 * Ex. #1: "In 1968, something happened."
 * Ex. #2: "On Wednesday, something else happened."
 * Ex. #3: "At 4PM, another something happened."

Cheers! Please stop reverting and making errors on wikipedia, that's not what we're here for.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is it that people who end notes with "Cheers" are invariably so cheerless? If you are wedded to the edicts of "official" style manuals, the British ones do not recommend commas in such situations, while American ones usually do.  The custom at WP is that if a comma is necessary to avoid ambiguity, you should use one; if the sentence is clear with or without a comma, you should not.  (Somewhere in the MOS it says, "The modern trend is to minimize the use of commas.")  In this situation, "In 1968 something happened" is just as clear as "In 1968, something happened", so commas are not necessary.   Also, why did you insist on changing only those two sentences, while leaving the other dozen or more similar sentences in the article unchanged?  It seems to me that you're just being stubborn, rather than crusading for metaphysical certitude in punctuation.


 * With all due respect: You will not endear yourself to anyone in the community with snide remarks like, "Please stop making errors, that's not what we're here for" -- as if anyone thinks he or she is here to make errors. I've been here long enough to realize that you get a lot more done and get along much better with other editors if you remain courteous and civil, even when you feel know you are right about some earthshaking issue like punctuation.  Best of luck in future editing endeavors.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Best of luck to you too! I'm glad we were able to resolve any misunderstandings as to the link you provided. Once again... Cheers!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * One quick other thing: Hollywood is in the US and a page about something in the US should use American English. As for what sentences I edited and which I didn't... Well, fine. I'll go fix all of them in that article when I have the time. It just so happens, I only fixed the ones in the section I read.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we resolved anything, if you still think that commas are absolutely necessary in this situation. But you may have already noticed that another editor has resolved that particular issue with a suitable compromise. That's how things should - and in most situations, do - work here.  Life is too short to quibble over commas.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ya, I left him a message too. Odd you find making mistakes to be a "suitable compromise." I really don't think errors are "how things should work here." In any case, have yourself a good day. I'm off to continue making wikipedia better (ie: with less mistakes). Cheerio!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And as he replied, his edit respects all conventions of English grammar and the Wikipedia MOS when it comes to a date appearing in the middle of a sentence. If a sentence can be rephrased to avoid a construct other editors find problematic, that is often the best course of action (certainly better than edit warring over it), and fits every definition I've ever seen of "suitable compromise". He is right.  I would strongly suggest that you drop the stick on this one.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, his edit was better. My mistake on that one! Cheerio!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 13, August-September 2015 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
 * Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
 * Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
 * Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

McGath & Zodiac
Hi Doc, I missed that you added that originally and I see that in the manner that it is currently treated, it gives about as much weight as it is due. I see now that the IP was trying to eradicate the conclusion of the book...one of those, "you'll have to read the book to find out" kind of things. No surprise that the IP locates to the same region as the author. Another book claiming to have solved it. Great. I'm aware of this thread. Personally, I wouldn't consider it to be reliable but you are essentially saving others from wasting their money by having it in the article, right? :) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bullseye. My sentiments exactly. The original "tease" (similar to the one you reverted) was added by that same IP, and removed by another editor. The book is priced at something like $35, which is outrageous, IMHO, particularly for what you get, which (as noted near the end of the thread you linked) isn't much. I thought it was worth 2 sentences to give it equal weight with the other suspects that have been proposed, based on similarly tenuous circumstantial evidence. Now, I see someone else has reverted it. I'm inclined to add it back, for both your reasons and mine, but I abhor edit warring -- what do you think?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think should join us. :) He may see his way to self-reverting after reading this.
 * and DoctorJoeE, the blurb does not say where McGath was a Sheriff nor what qualifies her as a WP:RS or expert on Zodiac. As an aside my Dad had 4 years in the Korean conflict and spent from 1990 to 2000 deligently researching a based on true life novel that he self published with Xlibris. Xlibris (later Author Solutions) hosed him for $40K for publishing/promotion and sold about 4 copies per year. Later he jumped to CreateSpace where they just charged him $1.70 per printed paperback, with no minimum. Until McGath demonsrates some notability I do not think she or her book should be included. I do appreciate that the blurb includes a book plot spoiler. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * She was a detective in Serasota - I'll include that if you think it's necessary - and she's notable for her involvement in a cold case involving Richard Hickock and Perry Smith (the "In Cold Blood" guys) and a quadruple murder. (The DNA didn't match, but it was very old DNA.) Her theory is certainly no less notable than Hodel's, Kaufman's, Lafferty's, or Kenney's -- so if you're going to insist on keeping hers out, you're going to have to pull the other ones out too.  As  said, my two sentences give it about as much weight as it is due - and saves our readers the book's ridiculous asking price.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  23:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your points are valid, Checkingfax...I have to agree since I first raised them. :) However, I also understand the value in DoctorJoeE's edits and determined that may be the best way of handling the situation. No one is trying to use her work to change the factual content of the article...I think we would all disagree with that. She isn't an RS but by mentioning the book in a very brief way then it may be seen that we haven't omitted it in error but rather given it the very minor mention that it merits. I doubt that anyone will buy her book based on that mention...it just shows that, once again there is another book of wild theories to be thrown into the pile with the others. This may be worth taking to the talk page of the article to see what other editors think.
 * , and Doc, go ahead and put McGath back but title her: former Sarasota, Florida Deputy Sheriff Kimberley McGath. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for working with us. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  23:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much
DoctorJoeE, thanks for your kind comments regarding my Quality improvement efforts, at: Articles for deletion/The Land of Gorch You said: "Yes, it's much better now". I really appreciate your acknowledgement of my Quality improvement efforts, that was very kind of you to say ! Since you've changed your view to "so, fine - keep it" -- will you please strike your "Merge" comment, at the AfD? Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied on the page. I haven't changed my mind so much as yielded to majority opinion, but I did strike the comment per your request. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But I'm just curious -- if you already acknowledged: "Yes, it's much better now" -- is that "yielding to majority opinion" or yielding to article improvements? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As you wish. What I was trying to say, perhaps not particularly clearly, is that I haven't changed my mind about the basic concept of singling out individual 3-minute sketches from a TV show and creating standalone articles for them.  But ... Joe only pawn in Game of Wikipedia.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  01:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. It seem's you're operating under personal opinion rather than WP:NOTE guidelines. But thanks again for acknowledging my efforts, with: "Yes, it's much better now". I do appreciate at least that much. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course; personal opinions always enter into editorial decisions. such as whether to create a standalone article. If they didn't we could let bots do it. I think such articles are difficult to justify under the criteria outlined in WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:CFORK, etc., etc. But I've already conceded the point -- you've improved the article sufficiently to justify its existence -- so let's move on, shall we? DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. And thank you for your Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, including WP:GAs and WP:FAs, on fascinating topics ! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace
If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I have very little interest in people who are famous for being famous (the Paris Hilton syndrome). A better project for someone so inclined might be the Donatella Versace article; for starters, it makes absolutely no mention of her horrific cosmetic surgery, for which she is arguably better known than for anything else. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Collins
Just left a reply on the article's talk page. Although I certainly don't feel I "own" anything on Wikipedia and am acutely aware of the policy, I can understand your certainly being slightly upset at, certainly, my edit today which although I would classify as restructuring (and hardly omitting in my view) as opposed to reverting. As indicated, your edit has improved greatly the article (which I have little else to add to given I've exhausted all bar 1 of my references anyhow). Yes, we have a common goal and perhaps a little dialogue - esp. from myself - would be more cordial. I was slightly concerned about the fact you indicated Collins' mother was present at the 1969 polygraph. No abrasiveness was intended.--Kieronoldham (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just reread your earlier edits and reinserted them. Sorry, maybe I overreacted. Thanks for your understanding that my intentions, like yours, were for the best. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * : Thank you, I appreciate that. For the record, I wrote that Collins' mother was present at the family conference following the confidential polygraph exam, as stated in the source I cited, not at the exam itself.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know. :) I just misread it yesterday. I don't wear glasses and never have. Wonder if Wikipedia can prescribe some for me. ;) Basically, because I misread that sentence it had me concerned as to the validity of the remaining. Never mind.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at DRN
You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for Wakefield efforts
Greetings, DrJoe! Thank you for your heroic efforts to educate and inform the WP:SPA "RealSkeptic", you exhibited a patience and calm professionalism above and beyond the call of duty. :) He/she was obviously WP:NOTHERE as well as massively WP:IDHT and would not even read his/her own citations. Wasted a lot of editor's time, now we have some quiet for a while. Damotclese (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, I appreciate the kind words. We've been through this repeatedly, as you may know -- if not, a review of the talk page archives will be enlightening, and perhaps even a bit entertaining.  The most obtuse disruptor was a lady whose pseudonym had something to do with marshmallows (misspelled). I got a barnstar for that one.


 * It always amazes me that the sources these people cite - when they bother to cite any - often say exactly the opposite of what they are claiming. Usually, that's a result of reading only cherry-picked, out-of-context excerpts (and outright lies) posted by crank anti-vaccine bloggers, rather than the actual source material. And new material keeps emerging, such as the recent report that before the GMC hearing, Wakefield's lawyers took statements from the parents of the children enrolled in the research - people on his side. When the QC read them, he realized that they all contradicted Wakefield's story! Which meant that none of them could be called to testify without sinking the defense (such as it was). In short, Wakefield's own counsel knew that the case was hopeless before the hearing even started. This was why they mounted a minimal defense, and did not approve funding for an appeal.


 * Of course, our "skeptic" friend, like all the rest, has no interest in being "educated and informed" - after all that dialog, he remains convinced that he's right and the rest of the world is wrong. It's a frustrating exercise, but we can't allow the myths to go unchallenged. Soon I'll be revising/expanding the FAQ section of that talk page, so that it might be a little less work for everyone the next time around. Cheers, DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I got a barnstar for that one. -- ROFL! That made me laugh. :) Damotclese (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I did.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 14, October-November 2015 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
 * Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
 * Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Blues Brothers/nicknames
I am fine with you changing my edit. But I am curious as to the difference between a new persona and nickname. For, example, Commander Cabel Chamberlain dropped his cop uniform to wear the suit and glasses, and became Cab Blues. He wasn't Cabel 'Cab' Chamberlain or Cab Blues Chamberlain. He was just Cab Blues. Which is different than "Blue Lou" Marini, or Paul "the Shiv" Shaffer. He was Cab Blues.

Really, in my opinion, since this is the band page, he should just be called Cab Blues and the Cabel Chamberlain name should be dropped altogether. But in the movie he was Cabel Chamberlain for so long that most people wouldn't know who Cab Blues is.

Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:983:8001:5B1E:A415:A074:22EA:C6DA (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A very valid point; I hadn't given it much thought, but you're quite right, it's not a nickname at all. And I agree that you can't simply drop the Cabel Chamberlain name, because casual readers won't get it.  So how about "Commander Cabel Chamberlain, later Cab Blues" -- or "Commander Cabel Chamberlain and Cab Blues" -- or simply, "Commander Cabel Chamberlain/Cab Blues"?  I think I would vote for the last one.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And then, Jim Belushi, who wasn't in the movies at all to have a character name, when in the band is known as Zee Blues. So, at least you know why I did it the way I did it. 2601:983:8001:5B1E:A415:A074:22EA:C6DA (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'll make the change now. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin
Hi DoctorJoeE. I noticed you've invested some time in the Shroud of Turin article so I was wondering if you could take a quick look at my suggestions to improve the neutrality of some specific wording, outlined at its Talk page and contribute your thoughts? I know with the lead-up to Christmas editors have had other priorities, so if wikipedians do see any merit in my suggestion I'd like the community input. If not, I'll move right along. Much appreciated! 121.216.197.53 (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Theatre Project collaboration
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosProteus (talk • contribs) 12:16, 21 April 2011‎ (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 15, December-January 2016 by, , , ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
 * # 1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
 * New branches and coordinators

Commas

 * How strange – my 4th edition, dated 2000, does not have that comma in Strunk's name on the cover or title page, and the text says not to use it. Did they make different editions for different regions, or what?  That closing statement is itself disputed, since the non-admin closer declared his opposition to the idea in his close, and added stuff that is hard to see as part of the consensus from the RFC.  Just read the discussion.  The evidence in outside style guides is pretty clear – the comma is illogical, annoying, a source of many errors, and on the way out.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that text you quote, with the lowercase jr., is from the original, now public-domain edition. I bet you got a modern knock-off of that instead of the one the E. B. White revised a few times.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously this is a way bigger deal to you than it is to me. Frankly, I don't see how it would be any of those things, but I really don't care that much.  There are situations where commas can save lives (e.g. "Let's eat Grandma" vs. "Let's eat, Grandma") but this clearly is not one of them; the meaning is the same either way.  So I'll keep using that particular comma, since I've been doing it for 55 years and I'm used to it, and you won't -- and we'll both be right!  Makes you feel kind of warm and fuzzy, doesn't it? Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It does. I've been using it at least that long, too, since I learned to write my Dad's name.  But for WP and other modern writing, as Strunk and White and others explain, we'll be better off without it.  Most articles in WP that use it now do so inconsistently (e.g. before but not after, as is also common in outside sources such as my dad's sister's obit); as long as we're cleaning up, might as well simplify, which is the consensus reflected in the recent RFC and now in WP:JR.  Feeling fuzzy.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Mary Travers
Hi, DoctorJoeE! I saw your edit to this article, saying it was "correct as it was", but the word "marrow" didn't exist when I edited. The sentence went something like "...following the transplant". But there had been no mention of a transplant beforehand, so to change "the" to "a" was the right thing to do to have the sentence read properly. All the best to you! Boscaswell  talk  11:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The transplant was mentioned in the sentence immediately preceding the one in question: "A bone marrow transplant in 2005 induced a temporary remission..." So "the" was, in fact, correct. I added the qualifier "marrow" to eliminate any future confusion. Best,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * whoops! Sorry, I must have missed that.  Best to you too!  Boscaswell   talk  19:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary; we've all made our share of minor mistakes. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!
Pistols at dawn? We may not see eye-to-eye on points of grammar but at least you have good taste with respect to FloFo; which is almost a contradiction in terms. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's go with Hungarian pastries at dawn! :-) Thanks, and have a great weekend.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  01:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Commas
What's up, Doc? Check out WP:JR please about the commas. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Dicklyon -- I often wonder who writes these WP guidelines; certainly none of my English teachers or professors. My copy of Strunk & White unequivocally says "the abbreviations etc. and jr. are always preceded by a comma", as does The new St. Martin’s Handbook, although it does note that "some writers are leaving the commas out".  Then again, some "writers" think "snuck" and "irregardless" are real words...


 * This isn't an issue worth arguing over, of course, at least to me -- but everybody, including WP:JR, agrees that punctuation choices need to be internally consistent -- so feel free to take those commas out again, if you feel strongly about it, as long as you remove them throughout the entire article. Cheers, DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Doc, that's cool that you have an Elements of Style that predates the 1979 edition. See Village pump (policy) for discussion, and Talk:Comma for data about comma usage in this context.  Let me know if you saw some place where I didn't fix it consistently. Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Um, no, Dicklyon, I have the 4th edition -- and the first author's name, on the title page, is listed as "William Strunk, Jr." -- for whatever that's worth. RE: the village pump discussion, please note comments by the hatting admin:
 * "One should remember that the MOS is a guideline, not a policy."
 * "There is no consensus [on comma use] outside of Wikipedia."
 * "I find the overview of style guides to be less convincing than I had hoped. Based on that evidence I would have spoken out against the proposal."
 * So would I, had I known that this discussion was taking place. But the editors have spoken.  Personally, I'll continue to use the comma.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  23:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Nickname, Common Name
Okay I guess I made a mistake. But it was from my removing "Ed" from Edward Gein's name. My edit was reverted so I thought okay I guess nicknames are used in the name when they are known by that nickname, Edward Gein is known as Ed Gein. So I looked at Ted Bundy's WP page and I added "Ted" in his name because he's known as Ted Bundy not Theodore Bundy. I didn't think I was insulting anyone. I thought the WP page on Common names also applied to the name they were referred to within the WP page. My mistake, I guess. No I won't let this discourage me from continuing to contribute. I just won't assume a revert implies that it is a general WP rule. I appreciate the positive tone of your not. Thank you for being considerateNapoleonX (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem, NapoleonX -- It takes awhile to get the hang of this place. We all make mistakes, and you're not a "real" editor until you've made at least a couple dozen of them. Your edit on the Ed Gein article was absolutely correct; the other editor was wrong to revert it, and I've re-reverted.  Anytime you're not sure how to proceed, I'll be glad to lend a hand; just ask.  BTW, for future reference, it's usually best to reply on your talk page to messages left there, just to make the discussion easier to follow. Happy editing!  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I get it, nobody's perfect. It was actually good to clarify that you don't need to add a nickname to a serial killer in the same way you would say to Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy. Thanks for the encouragement. Happy Easter! NapoleonX (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Hello, I'm Doniago. I wanted to let you know that I undid your recent edits to the Independence Day (1996 film) plot summary because they added a significant amount of unneeded detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm DoctorJoeE. Please refrain from leaving template messages on established editors' talk pages; it's insulting.  With regard to the Independence Day plot summary, you removed important details -- and since the summary is already under 700 words, further trimming is not necessary.  Thanks!  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to re-add the cast, that may be worth considering, but per WP:BRD you should initiate a Talk page discussion and get consensus. The details I removed were to bring the plot within compliance per WP:FILMPLOT and were not, in my estimation, important. I would note that in the past there has been consensus at WP:FILM not to include cast members within the plot summary if there is a separate Cast section and the word count of the Plot section is a concern. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Take another look -- I didn't add anything. I restored the cast references, which someone inexplicably took out.  If anything should be removed, it is the cast section, which is unnecessary, and contains way too much trivia.  How do the details that you removed "bring the plot within compliance"?  YOU need to establish consensus for removing those important details, since the summary was already under 700 words, and you're the one initiating changes. By the way, you are now at 2RR, which puts you at the fringe of an edit war, so please don't revert again without discussing on the talk page.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could I just add my total support for DoctorJoeE's comments and observations above. David J Johnson (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As a discussion regarding the Plot summary has been initiated at the article's Talk page, I will express any further thoughts I have on this matter there. DonIago (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wonderful; and perhaps you will at least have the decency to apologize for posting a condescending, insulting, factually incorrect, templated message, rather than a civil, personalized explanation of why you wanted to make the changes you made. But I'm not holding my breath. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No answer. No surprise there. Archiving. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
You managed to drag yourself to the talk page last time: try it again over your continued edit warring over the colon. - SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * SchroCat, I'm doing my best to remain civil, but the focus is rapidly shifting from content dispute to your attitude, which is most unpleasant. If you would take the trouble to look at MOS:COLON -- or any good grammar text -- you will see that "a colon works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it", not in the midst of a sentence.  The example they give illustrates this.  This is basic punctuation stuff. And if you don't stop reverting every single minuscule edit that I make -- and calling it "edit warring" -- I will need to seek administrative assistance. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The edits I have reverted have been poor, that is all: if you make any good edits, I will not revert them. As to COLON, the MoS is not as inflexible as you make out ("In most cases a colon works best ...") In this instance, preceeding a quote, the colon use is just fine and dandy. What isn't fine and dandy is having two sets of square brackets ("... [Disney was] not [anti-Semitic]"). Feel free to ask for administrative help if you wish to have your edit warring and attitude examined: there have been a few of them reviewing at PR who possibly have the page watchlisted anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As you wish. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, the admin I consulted agrees with me, particularly on the "centaurette" issue, but doesn't "feel strongly enough to pursue it". So the arrogance and ownership issues, and the ridiculous edit warring charge -- will have to slide, and I will move on to other articles on my to-do list.  For the record, when I was growing up, interrupting a sentence with a colon in that manner was considered a sign of basic illiteracy. My 7th grade English teacher, bless her heart, would have cringed, and would be proud that I pointed it out; but one must choose one's battles. Archiving this silly discussion, and good riddance.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 16, February-March 2016 by ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
 * Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
 * A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
 * Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Proofreading
Hi there. It's great that you're editing Wikipedia. I note that this edit here totalled the formatting in the final paragraph, making half of it italic. I know you're under a lot of pressure to make as many edits as possible in the brief time you have on this planet, but I think it would be great if you briefly paused after making an edit before moving on. I'll leave this one for you to fix. Cheers! -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Gee, Ashley, you seem to be having a rough day. Is a small oversight like that really such a rare discovery for "one of the most prolific (11K edits??) WP editors"?  I run across them all the time -- and I just fix them.  It's quicker and easier, and more in the spirit of WP:AGF, than going to the trouble of leaving a sarcastic message, don't you think? And I do indeed proof my edits, but errors still slip through, occasionally.  In any case, I've fixed this one.  Thanks for the heads-up. I guess. Hope the rest of your weekend goes better.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

re: Edits on Screamers
Hello, I'm Jeremy Carl. I noticed you have been undoing my changes to the plot summary of Screamers. The latest undo is paired with a message "Please review advice on your talk page re: unnecessary plot detail." I'm not sure what you mean here. On my talk page are people telling me to stop removing plot details, which is the exact opposite of what I'm doing here. Also I think our opinions differ on what amount to "unnecessary plot detail". I think my edit did the following:
 * It clarified a lot of things. For example, the fighting sides are only representatives of the forces on Earth, which was not clear from the earlier version.
 * It corrected factual errors in the previous synopsis, and removes things that are only implied, not explicitly stated. For example: "Not true, says Private "Ace" Jefferson (Andrew Lauer), newly arrived from Earth." (He never said this, and the movie never stated he was transported from Earth). "Hendricksson is not surprised" (he is shocked and angry, but accepts the fact quickly). "Hendricksson learns that the NEB truce offer was just as false as the Alliance message from Earth" (He only learns that communication in the bunker is down, but before he can confirm anything, the computer is destroyed).
 * It changed the sentences whose tone is, in my opinion, not exactly encyclopedic. Example sentences are above.
 * It trimmed down some unnecessary detail, which wasted words that are better spent on more important plot points. For example, the mention of the "Tabs", which is an extremely minor subplot to hint at the Screamers' evolution.

While I agree that my version of the synopsis is not the best, I don't think it's really necessary to undo the whole thing in the name of "removing plot bloat". And the word count is less than the previous version. I hope we can reach a more constructive solution than this.

Thank you for your time, and have a nice day. JeremyCarl (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, JeremyCarl, I appreciate your civil approach. My revert was a basic example of WP:BRD; you were bold, you were reverted, and now we discuss. (The most appropriate venue is usually the article's talk page, but since we're here, let's discuss it here.)  Some of your points are well taken, others less so; some are more confusing than clarifying. For example, I'm fine with adding that they're fighting over the fictional substance "berynium", but once that is added, further explanation - that said substance supposedly solves all of Earth's energy problems, but that miners die of radiation poisoning - is then necessary. As another example, the soldiers are indeed "representatives" of Earth-based forces, but every war is fought by "representatives" of some sort, so no need to spell it out.  A better way to put it might be that the situation is an ongoing cold war on Earth and a hot war on Sirius 6B, between the miners' union (Alliance) and the energy company (NEB).


 * Let me have a go at putting together a compromise edit. (I'll try to get to it later today, or this evening -- tough day at the office!) If that isn't mutually satisfactory, we can discuss some more. But again, thanks for reaching out.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert Cheechi
I argue that Robert Cheechi does seem to deserve a place on the Alcatraz Escape article. Although he is rarely mentioned when it comes to the escape, Cheechi did testify to the FBI that he saw a boat in the bay that night, and that the boat should not have been there (as Alcatraz was a no-go zone for civilian or non-prison boats). The boat theory has had many alternative "suspects" for it over the years, including Bumpy Johnson (which Clarence Carnes suggested), the man who made a deathbed confession about the escape (which the daily mail talks article talks about) and recently, Fred Brizzi (as the Wideners believe). Even if the Daily Mail is an unreliable source, in my honest opinion Cheechi's exact quoted & sourced words could be added within the events' timeline of the article along with attribution, in the second paragraph of the "Investigation" section: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.100.91 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I will respond on the article talk page -- and BTW, it's Checchi. Let's at least get the man's name right. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This is our friend, the UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP, latest IP now blocked.  Acroterion   (talk)   09:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)