User talk:DoctorJoeE/Archive 6

Steven Avery
Yes, exactly we should not do edit warring. And as you say, if we should remove huge parts of an article it should be brought up at the talk page before it is removed. Not when someone reverts the removal to get you the opportunity to bring it up at the talk page. It is a weird circle argument to claim that I should bring it up at the talk page when it is someone else who has done the removal of content before bringing it up at the talk page.. BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, BabbaQ, let me clarify. First of all, WP guidelines are pretty unambiguous:  "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material".  So let's have a look at the history of the material in question: User:Cali0823 added it on 18 April.  It was removed in two successive edits by an IP, the first portion because the victim's obituary was an improper and irrelevant source, and the second portion because the content about the contested material evidence made no sense as written.  You added both portions back, with no explanation.  The IP again removed the material, repeating his/her objections.  You again added everything back, again with no explanation.  Since this scenario has all the earmarks of an edit war, I removed the material once again and suggested a discussion on the talk page, per WP:BRD.  There is nothing "weird" or "circular" about that suggestion; that's what BRD is all about — after "bold" and "revert" comes "discuss".


 * That said — I have taken a closer look at the sources cited in the material evidence entry, and a portion of that information, properly summarized, does seem relevant to the article. Since you are already at 2RR on this, let me have a go at re-adding some of the material in a more coherent form.  (I'm not going to re-add the first citation, as I agree with the IP that Halbach's obit is irrelevant, as it makes no mention of Avery, or even her (suspected) murder.)  If you disagree with any of this, let's discuss it on the article's talk page, as I originally suggested. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you rewrite the blood vial section (and it really does need a thorough going over), it might make more sense to put it in the Making a Murderer article than in the Steven Avery article, as the issue with the blood vial has a lot more relevance to the documentary than to Avery's life. Just a thought. 32.218.35.218 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps; I will take a look at that as well. Thanks. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Cali0823 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC) DoctorJoeE, I had added the section about the vial of blood because i felt that it was a major part of Steven Avery's trial. After looking over the Making a Murder page and Steven Avery's, i found that it would make more sense to put on Steven's page since nothing about the trial was mentioned on the document page. I do agree though, that there needs to be more information added and sources to make the vial blood credible. I will search deeper and try to add more that will hopefully make the paragraph credible
 * I found some time, at last, to take a closer look at this, and I have to agree with 32.218.35.218 that the blood vial reference is essentially irrelevant to the Avery article, because it turned out to be a false lead, and had no bearing on the outcome of the trial. It does have relevance to the Making a Murderer article, so I will be moving it there later today, after some clarifying copy editing.  If there are objections, we can discuss it on one or both of the article talk pages.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What I actually did, finally, was move the blood vial content to a more appropriate location within the Avery article -- as an example of the evidence tampering that was alleged. Then I added an abbreviated version of that content to the Making a Murderer article.  Again, if anyone is not happy, we can discuss it on the relevant article's talk page.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article. It looks much better - more organized, more neutral, less undue emphasis on certain aspects of his life and trial. 32.218.152.198 (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No problemo, thanks for noticing. Still a lot of unresolved questions in that case ... will be interesting to see how it all pans out.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 18 vs. 12: See article talk page. 32.218.33.213 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Ron Luciano and Buddy Bell
I noticed in the Ron Luciano article, it says he switched places with Buddy Bell during a game in 1973, which is sourced to "The Ump And The Manager" from Sports Illustrated. When I look at it in the Wayback Machine, it doesn't even appear to mention Bell's name. Since it looks like you added that back in 2011 (Special:Diff/446559287), can you take a look and see if you can find the right source for this? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Jackmcbarn, the original source is The Umpire Strikes Back, exerpted in several magazine articles -- but evidently not the one I cited. (I must have had more than one article in front of me when I added that content.)  I'll get the exact page number out of the book and correct the citation.  Thanks for the heads-up.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 17, April-May 2016 by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
 * Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
 * New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Stade Roland Garros
Article reviewed, comments left on talk page. KnowIG (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

apology
DoctorJoeE, I'm sorry that you were bothered about the reverting business at Talk:Main sequence. I hope no one has hacked your account to be able to make it look like you were involved. - Fartherred (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No apology needed, Fartherred. Sometimes we just hit the wrong button - although again, I can't imagine how it would happen in this case, since I've never even visited that page. No other evidence that my account has been compromised, fortunately.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)
They are putting the MASH trivia again. Can you please keep an eye on the article too? Thanks. Had my 6th melanoma diagnosed, but it is in situ. Surgeon will be taking care of it week after next....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, thanks for the heads-up. Wow, 6 MMs -- thank goodness it's in situ. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Were you aware the Polo Grounds Clubhouse was in stragitaway centerfield and not connected to the dugout? So if the players were going to the clubhouse after Thomson's homerun, they would still be on the field....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * BTW, here's the video and at the :35 mark as Thomson rounds for second headed for third, Jackie Robinson (playing 2B that day) can be seen with his back to the play and headed towards CF aka The Clubhouse. Video shows other Dodger players on the field as Thomson rounded 3rd and as the Giants celebrated afterwards. The bit about Robinson watching was added in this edit over 10 years ago and another editor modified it to mention of Merkle's Boner I edited the article to remove this part. BTW I have asked it be page protected again....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have a still photo, taken from center field, showing Thomson getting mobbed as he crosses the plate and Robinson, standing behind second with his back to the camera, watching him do it, as his teammates walk dejectedly toward the camera. I'm sure there's a good cite to support the Robinson-watching-Thomson story, so let me put it back in, with a [cn] tag until I can source it properly.  I agree that the "Merkle's Boner" reference is probably WP:OR, so I'll leave that out (although I will look for a cite for that as well).  Yes, I'm aware that the clubhouses were under the centerfield bleachers, so it should probably say, "...the Dodgers began walking toward the centerfield clubhouse..." or something similar.  Let me play with it a bit.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 18, June–July 2016 by, Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
 * Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
 * TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
 * OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Madame Flo and Don Rico
Hi, I'm the editor who yesterday attempted to delete Caruso from the Florence Foster Jenkins article lede's mention of her admirers. My apologies for editing as an IP, and a floating one at that—I've had an account for six years and a clean record, but a nasty edit stalker taking revenge for being called out on a bad edit has got me working anonymously since last December.

I have no doubt that Jenkins had celebrity fans—Porter, Menotti, et al—but Caruso sticks out like a sore thumb in the list as almost certainly a ringer. Firstly, as pointed out in my edit summary, his lifetime only barely overlapped with her "career". Was she even giving her concerts prior to 1921, by which fatal year Caruso was too ill to get much pleasure from any such campy amusement? The previously cited source, severely misreported, said only that Jenkins made him an honorary member of her Verdi club, founded in 1917, and I have no reason to doubt that, either: she could just as easily have bestowed such honorary memberships on Puccini, President Wilson, King George V and the Pope, but of course that would not make any of them her "fans", or even acquaintances, either.

The middling-quality newspaper source you added typically backs up its mentions of celebrity fans with an attributed quote or some other potentially verifiable source. When it comes to Caruso, however, it says only that he "was supposed to have been an ardent fan". For all we know, that could mean the Telegraph's reporter got that tidbit by reading the Wikipedia article—it would be far from the first instance of such circular referencing if so.

If you insist on including Caruso in the list of Jenkins' celebrity fans, please also include the qualifying words needed for accurate reporting, which will probably require putting him in his own sentence or phrase, e.g. "Enrico Caruso was also supposed to have been a fan." Someone will then be able to hang a "by whom?" tag on the word "supposed", and the resulting indication of doubt, IMO, would be just as it should be. 66.81.223.177 (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Answered on the Jenkins article talk page. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

West African Ebola virus epidemic
DoctorJoeE some time ago you reviewed my GA nom for Dyslexia, I have a question whenever you might have the chance....thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ozzie10aaaa, how can I help? DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm nominating West African Ebola virus epidemic for GA, would you review it..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, that a long article, and RL is sort of frantic at the moment (daughter getting married). I will do my best, but it might take awhile. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  04:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you DoctorJoeE --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * posted today thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

John Titor
hello. I don't understand your edit note, "no evidence". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Titor&diff=prev&oldid=739133329 the ref is not a primary source for the claim. It is a secondary reference of the claim that was made. I did not say that it had been determined that the claim is true or not, just putting it in the article, in a secondary ref. as you requested from the 1st deletion of this information, (you were correct there-kind-of since primary sources can be used, but the secondary is better). I have the article on watch now. I have put the info back into the article and asked that it be discussed on TP before rm again-thanks!TeeVeeed (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Good morning, TeeVeeed. Actually, interviews are considered primary sources, and most blogs are questionable sources at best. If you take a look at the Titor talk page, you'll see that this has already been discussed, in January 2015.  Then as now, there is no sourcing other than statements made by Matheny himself.  You are correct that the claim does not necessarily need to be true, but it does need to be verifiable and notable.  So you will need to find a reliable secondary source to establish notability and verifiability before it can go into the article -- and even then, probably not in the lede.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes I did notice the TP discussion. That is why I am sure that the info. should be included. The guy claims it was him and his friends. I'll try to find an even better source but a primary will suffice if needed jftr-right?TeeVeeed (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No. A topic with no secondary sourcing fails general notability guidelines, by definition.  To put it another way, Matheny's statements cannot serve as their own verification.  ("The guy claims it was him [sic] and his friends" just won't cut it.)  You would need a reliable secondary source to show that his claims are of some significance before it could go into the article.  Matheny has been talking about this since 2009, according to the talk page, so if there are no true secondary sources by now, after 7 years, it's simply not notable, by definition.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 19, September–October 2016 by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti  Read the full newsletter 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
 * New Library Card Platform and Conference news
 * Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Bob Crane
Hi - fair point regarding TMZ and Bob Crane - since this morning the story is now appearing on other sites (e.g. Fox News, Daily Mail)... worth putting back up, or still feels a bit thin? Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This whole "will reveal the results on his show" thing smacks of WP:PROMO -- let him do his revealing, 3 days from now, and if the result is notable, we'll add it to the article. It's all just grandstanding -- the headlines are saying that a DNA match will solve the case, which it clearly will not. But it will strengthen the case against Carpenter, and be worth mentioning in the article. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it – thanks Dmoore5556 (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Jenkins article
Would you please explain to me why you are edit-warring to make the age of Bayfield wrong, after a New York Times obituary showing the age at his death was posted on the article talk page? Coretheapple (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not trying to annoy you -- I'm going by the cited sources, which specifically say "16 years her junior". I went to the Bayfield article to try to resolve the issue -- but there, the source for "7 years her junior" says "16 years her junior".  (I did not change that one, but if you are right, the current source is wrong.)  It is certainly possible that the cited sources are wrong, but it's also possible that NYT is wrong, yes?  I suppose the best compromise would be to leave it out entirely, which is what you were trying to do, I now understand -- but someone will just add it back, because that's what the sources say.  If we can come up with an unimpeachable source that trumps all the "16 years her junior" sources, that would be the ideal solution. I understand that we're both just trying to improve the encyclopedia. No offense meant.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. I did not substitute "7" for "16." When there is a conflict of sources we need to be careful. In this case I've found three sources - the Times obit and two books - which support seven. I think the obit is fairly definitive, as I doubt there is an actor in the universe who would inflate his age by nine years! Particularly an egomaniac like Bayfield. In addition I put Bayfield into Ancestry.com and I received an avalanche of confirmation of the 1875 birthdate, including the Social Security Death Index as well as ship passenger rosters. But the Times is really sufficient. Coretheapple (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, then someone (not I, because I don't care enough) will ask you why the Times trumps other sources that specifically say "16 years". So it's probably better to leave it out entirely until we find out who's correct. Reasoning that "an actor wouldn't inflate his age" is pure WP:OR.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd have to examine more closely the ones that say "sixteen years." It could be a misinformation "loop." Contempory obituaries are better than recent coverage of the movie, for instance. SSDI and Ancestry materials are sometimes utilized in these instances, and certainly should resolve any good-faith concerns. P.S. my comment re actors not exaggerating their ages falls into the category of "common sense." Coretheapple (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, no. If sources conflict, and an editor chooses to cite one source over the other because "an actor wouldn't exaggerate his age", that's OR.  As noted in WP:WIARM, exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, because you are implying that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil.  But to be clear, I'm not seeing it that way; I've already conceded the point, because it's not important how much younger he was than FloFo.  Sources conflict, so let's just leave his age out of it.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Interested in Reviewing?
Hi DoctorJoeE, I see you're one of the active members of the dermatology task force and I wanted to see if you would be interested in reviewing the acne vulgaris article for FA. I've asked people a few times on Wikiproject Medicine without much of a response after a number of weeks despite it being an important article. If not, do you know anyone on the dermatology task force who regularly reviews derm articles? Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Somehow, I was under the impression that there's a "special" group of reviewers for FA status. If not, I'll be happy to give it a go, although it won't be immediately -- real life is a bit hectic at the moment, with the holidays and all. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is such a group, I have not been able to locate them. If you can find the time, I'd be most appreciative. If you can't, I completely understand. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 20, November-December 2016 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Partner resource expansions
 * New search tool for finding TWL resources
 * # 1lib1ref 2017
 * Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit
I recently made an edit that you reverted. My edit said that the marriage between Dawkins and Lalla was ended. I did not use the word 'divorced' in the edit, I used the word 'ended'. My source does in fact say that the marriage between Dawkins and Lalla was ended, it's in the very title of the article. So I don't know if this was a misunderstanding, because if you take a look at the edit you reverted, it specifically used the phrase "ended their marriage", not "divorced". If this was a misunderstanding on my phrase I'd like you to undo your revert.Korvex (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stopping by. In your original edit summary, you wrote, "Separation is an ambiguous term and fails to reflect it was an actual divorce" -- without citing a source.  This was reverted by another editor.  In your second edit summary, you wrote, "Source added for divorce as requested" -- and cited a Daily Mail article.  I reverted that one for two reasons: (1) The Daily Mail, by widespread consensus, cannot be considered WP:RS due to its repeated fabrication of stories; and (2) while the DM headline says "Dawkins announces end to 24-year marriage", Dawkins and Ward apparently did no such thing; they are quoted only as saying that they had "separated amicably", and are "not prepared to share any details".  A re-revert by me will not be helpful to you, as someone else will simply revert again, on the same grounds.  If you feel that this is an important enough issue to pursue, I would suggest that you craft a new edit, using a reliable source -- for example, this Times article -- and avoid any mention of "divorce", or the marriage being "ended", since neither reliable sources such as the Times nor the involved people themselves have used either of those terms.  I would also suggest that any further discussion of this issue be conducted on the article talk page, which is a more appropriate venue for it. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Billy Meier page Edits
You are deleting comments that I am including in Billy Meier page. I understand I am learning how to publish in Wikipedia, and I have to refer any satatement to a verifiable source... thank you for your patience. You deleted a coment about a signed declaration of Kallope that is in a book. She testified that Meier case is real. This is a signed declaration presented in a book. Both aspects, her recent declation that this case is false, plus her previous declaration that it was real are part of the neutrality. If you are deleting my comments this page is not neutral. Why did you do that? This book is in the references on the page, so it is a reliable source.

You may find in this page that most of the statements are based on the IIG web page investigations. But those links does not exist. So the article is based on missing or unexistant links. I would like to present in this page real and verifiable source information to show both aspects of this case. Currently the page is very bias to discredit Meier based on false links. How do you suggest we may proceed to reach the desired Neutrality? Can I write a proposal and many people may contribute to it? Do you want me send Wikipedia a formal petition signed by many of your readers? Please guide me on how to move on.

It makes not sense you and I waisting our time in a process that goes nowhere. Rhal zahi (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stopping by. I know it is frustrating to have your work reverted; it happened to me when I first came here, as it does to most new editors.  (I should point out that it is not just me; I see notes on your talk page indicating that other editors have expressed concern about your editing as well.)  People often come to WP to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but unfortunately, this is not the appropriate venue.  Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research.  WP can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave, because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion.  Even if you're certain that something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.  If you are convinced that Billy Meier is the real deal, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media that satisfy WP criteria as reliable sources.  Opinion blogs and self-published books do not meet those criteria.  (For a full explanation of reliable sources, see WP:RS).  Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought; which — for the purposes of this particular project — is a good thing.  (For additional examples and a more substantial discussion, see WP:FLAT.)


 * As to what you should do going forward, I would suggest making your case on the Billy Meier article's talk page, spelling out the changes you want to make and citing source material that meets WP:RS guidelines. I would caution you to expect some push-back, as there appears to be precious little published evidence in mainstream sources supporting Meier's claims, but that's what WP is all about. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Dogma (film)
When Roger Ebert said I consider myself Catholic, lock, stock and barrel, he was only asserting his Catholic identity even though he no longer believed. (According to Catholic dogma, any person who receives baptism are considered Catholic until death regardless of they denounce their faith, therefore he was Catholic lock, stock and barrel). Which is why it was followed by this sentence: I cannot believe in God. I refuse to call myself a atheist however, because that indicates too great a certainty about the unknowable. He was stating his humililty in rejecting his faith. Blue sphere  14:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * But he was a Catholic, which was all we said. But it's a small point, not worth an argument, so we'll leave it be.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies
Hey, I saw you reverted my edit on Lord of the Flies because of its lack of source. Do you know how I would site the lyrics of a song? I can't cite a lyrics website, and im not quite sure where else to find a citation for it. Do I need an article that mentions that fact? That seems a bit extreme.Xevus11 (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I did some digging and found the citeAV format, so I added that line back and put the citation to the song directly into it. If that isn't good enough, please let me know, I want to do this right. Xevus11 (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Xevus11. Unfortunately, a primary source (the lyrics themselves) won't do, because you are drawing your own conclusion about what the lyrics mean, and that's why WP doesn't allow primary sources as standalone citations.  As editors, we can't draw conclusions; we have to find secondary reliable sources that draw them.  Besides, the song seems to be about a gangbanger or hit man; there is no indication that it has anything to do with Golding's book.  "Lord of the flies", as I'm sure you know, is a Biblical synonym for the devil -- and that, in my opinion, is what the songwriter was referring to, not the book per se.  But of course, our opinions don't matter on WP -- all that matters are sources.  I did a couple of searches, and could only find a few blog posts (which are not RS), most of which disagree on the song's meaning.  If you can find a published secondary source that specifically makes a connection between the song and the novel, feel free to add the edit back, with that source cited.  For a more detailed explanation of what constitutes a reliable source, see WP:RS.  Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Understandable, but the lyrics literally say "Lord of the flies," is that not good enough?Xevus11 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, "lord of the flies" does not necessarily refer to the novel, and there is no indication (nor secondary sourcing) to suggest that it does in this case. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Brainwave Entrainment
Hi,

I'm new to posting anything on Wikipedia, but I was skimming that article and noticed the criticisms. You seem to have some knowledge of the topic and editing, and I was wondering if you could explain what the issue is with primary sources? While systematic reviews and meta-analyses are great, they are relatively rare in some fields. Books are acceptable sources, but interpreting original research is usually the standard, at least in my field. I'm confused as to why it's being put down as inferior here. (To clarify, this is not a criticism of you, you just happened to be the most recent to bring it up and I am curious).

I ask because I'm actually in the middle of writing a lecture/presentation on rhythmic auditory stimulation. The idea of manipulating neural oscillations falls under this topic and I was looking for a brief overview which led me here. From what I can see, the summary is in keeping with my other reading so far....At least it stays away from the "living your best life" self-help fluff that I have seen on other sites. Pixi78 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)B


 * Hi, Pixi78. WP discourages the use of primary sources and user-generated source material.  Understandably, newcomers tend not to understand the reasoning behind this.  WP:PSTS explains in detail the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, and why the absence of conclusions in primary sources is problematic for WP editors. We try not to rely on primary sources because they nearly always force editors to draw their own conclusions, which is a basic WP no-no.  By drawing your own conclusions you are doing original research, which is not allowed here.  Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research.  WP can record new discoveries, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave, because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion.  Even if you're certain that something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it to a WP article -- that is, after it has been reported in mainstream media that satisfy WP criteria as reliable sources.  (For a full explanation of reliable sources, see WP:RS).  Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought, which — for the purposes of this particular project — is a good thing.  (For additional examples and a more substantial discussion, see WP:FLAT.)  I hope that answers your question; if not, let me know, and I'll attempt a better explanation. Cheers,  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 21, January-March 2017 by, , , ,

 Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * # 1lib1ref 2017
 * Wikipedia Library User Group
 * Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
 * Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Precious four years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Al Flosso
Why did you remove the (sic) statement I added to the quote on Al Flosso's page as unnecessary. The quote (wherever it came from) makes an erroneous statement, which should be noted. Flosso did not perform in A Night at the Opera as the quote states, but in Monkey Business as stated above the quote. The inclusion of a (sic) makes it clearer which statement is accurate. Shsilver (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Shsilver. I see what you were trying to do now (although sic is usually used for spelling or grammar errors), but since you didn't explain what you were doing in the edit summary, I had no idea, except perhaps to indicate the unnecessary capitalization of "the".  A footnote might be a better way of pointing out this inaccuracy; or even better, simply take it out and replace it with an ellipsis, since his involvement in Monkey Business is already mentioned.  Actually I'm not sure the block quote belongs there at all -- at the very least it needs proper sourcing.  I'll look into that as time & spouse permit.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call
This is a volunteer roll call sent to you on behalf of the current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Coordinator, Robert McClenon, and is being sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN. 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 the roll call list. Those who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after May 31, 2017 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after May 31, 2017, 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, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)  (Not watching this page)

New Page Reviewer granted
Hello DoctorJoeE. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

Goat poop
It shouldn't be too hard to get the kind of photo you describe, lol. "The animals tend not to hold their poop until after class and will occasionally try to eat the yoga mats". Note that the goat owner is a former photographer! I hope she thinks of donating some of the photo realism you ask for. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC).


 * Me too! ;-) DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Drums Along the Mohawk
There were various color film formats; Technicolor identifies it as the one used Savolya (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Savolya. Why is that detail important?  I agree that readers usually wish to know whether a film was made using color or B&W stock -- but does anyone really care which exact color process was used?  And even if there is significant call for such specificity, "in Technicolor" is already featured prominently on the promo poster in the infobox -- so is it really necessary to further drive that point home?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Every color format was an evolution in the color process and allowed lens development to come of age. Each process accentuate various chrome effects over other and have shown some degradation and sustainability over the years. Knowledge is important to be at hand, instead of delving into from a poster listing, especially if we get people interested in the cinema arts. Savolya (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but does it need to be in the lede? Feel free to put it in the body of the article somewhere, where cinema arts readers can seek it out if they wish.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Ted"
Ted Kaczynski Ted_Kennedy Ted Cruz Ted Nugent Ted Turner

The list goes on. You still don't own any pages on Wikipedia. You gonna make me do another RfC, or self-revert? Your choice. Rockypedia (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed multiple times on multiple pages, and you don't own any pages either. I'll refer you to the discussions, or you can seek them out yourself. I don't care that other editors of other pages have dropped the ball on this point. The fact is that readers (most, anyway) are not idiots, and they know that "Ted" is a nickname for "Theodore" without it being explained to them, particularly when it's already in the article title, just above. Many think there is a "convention" to include nicknames in first mention, but there is none, and you won't find any examples in WP:MOS or anywhere else.  See WP:ALTNAME & WP:NICKUSE, for starters - it's redundant & unencyclopedic, especially with scare quotes, as if it's a weird nickname like "Scarface" or "The Buckinghamshire Strangler".  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you need a specific reference, see Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ted Bundy rfc archiving
I see you 1CA an open RfC, is there a reason why? Thanks  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  12:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I conceded the point, so there was nothing left to discuss; and the user who initiated the RfC was piling on and gloating, so no further useful purpose was being served. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  12:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just reviews, the  backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

DRN Newsletter 1
You are receiving this message because you are a volunteer at the The dispute Resolution noticeboard. To stop receiving messages in the future, remove your name from The volunteer list. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22
 The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 22, April-May 2017

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * New and expanded research accounts
 * Global branches update
 * Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
 * Bytes in brief

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
 * Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Page Curation/Suggested improvements
 * The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
 * User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
 * User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:
 * Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 23, June-July 2017

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta! Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Library card
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
 * Bytes in brief

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
 * Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: 
 * On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
 * Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call
This volunteer roll call is sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at dispute resolution noticeboard. If you are still interested in assisting at DRN and are willing to do so by either handling at least one case per month, or by helping at administrative and coordination tasks on monthly (at least) basis, please add your username here. Volunteers who do not add their username on the roll call list will be removed from the volunteers list after November 15, 2017 unless it is chosen to have them retained for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. In case you are removed from the volunteers list, you may re-add your username at any time. However please do so only if you can and are willing to participate as described above. Either ways, I would like to thank you for your participation and assistance at DRN so far, and wish that you will continue contributing to the encyclopedia and assisting when available. The DRN coordinator, Kostas20142 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 24, August-September 2017

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta! Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
 * Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
 * Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
 * Bytes in brief

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
 * Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
 * The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * → DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!

to
 * → DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!

Notes:
 * 1) Links to this page appear bold instead of wikilinked.
 * 2) The new signature is right at the character limit, but it should work.

Respectfully, —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Edited: On my first try, I didn't escape &amp;nbsp;, so it displayed as a space, and if you copied it from the screen, you would have lost the non-breaking space. I changed it to escape &amp;nbsp; so it displays correctly in the copyable markup. I changed "Contributions" to "Contribs", which also works, and the markup remains right at the 255-character limit. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello DoctorJoeE! I'm new to Wikipedia, actually I've just registered and only to ask you a question. At this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ted_Bundy/Archive_4 you wrote that "Polly Nelson wrote that Bundy authorized Diana Weiner to handle all his postmortem issues, and she (Nelson) advised Weiner to use a discrete undertaker from Tallahassee whom she trusted. Instead, Weiner used a Gainesville undertaker who turned out to be an outspoken death penalty proponent, and Nelson was therefore 'not surprised' when 'unauthorized' postmortem photos surfaced in the tabloids". I knew that Bundy authorized Weiner to handle all his postmortem issues (this information has been abundantly published online, and I also read about Bundy's wishes in his Testament, also available online), but I didn't know Nelson advised Weiner to use a discrete undertaker from Tallahassee whom she trusted, yet Weiner used a Gainesville undertaker who turned out to be an outspoken death penalty proponent... Where did you read / hear this? That information you posted there intrigued me, and I was wondering about its source. You can also answer me, if you wish to, at my e-mail address: mariacristina_serban@yahoo.com

Best regards, Maria Serban — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montaouroux (talk • contribs) 11:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)