User talk:Drjem3

Talkback
On weather Quackwatch is a reliable source. Immunize (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Abram Hoffer. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines
Please review the talk page guidelines. In particular, use threaded discussions and don't intersperse your commentary between that of other people's. It makes the conversation difficult to follow and it's much harder to tell who said what. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't edit archives
Archives are historical references. They shouldn't be edited, pretty much ever, by anyone. I've reverted your change; if you think there is a point to be made, you should start a new section on the reliable sources noticeboard but I would urge you to familiarize yourself with previous discussions. The community tends to get irked at the same topic being repeatedly beaten to death. However, if you still think there is a point to be made after reviewing the archives, then start a new section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Another point - revisiting the same issue repeatedly can be seen as both civil POV-pushing and/or forum shopping, neither of which are looked well upon by the community. Part of editing here is accepting that we'll be faced with decisions we think are dumb or inappropriate.  I'm not sure what kind of response you'll get at RSN, but if the conclusion is that quackwatch is reliable, I would suggest not bringing it up repeatedly.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

May, 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the three-revert rule only refers to reversions of other's edits and not to modifications of one's own work. Anyway, I'm obviously just responding to issues raised in the now rather voluminous discussion pages, demands for cites and the like. Just like I am supposed to do, after discussion and all. If you don't want me posting the material you ask for, don't ask for it. Or change my posting after further discussion. Drjem3 (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Dr. Jem! It's so nice to have another voice of reason on the DID page.~ty (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Ginbot86 06:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Some discussions of interest
I can understand why you might not want to be involved. However, some discussions at User talk:Smokefoot and Talk:Nobel Prize may be of interest. You may be following these already. But just in case. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I will follow these with interest. Drjem3 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User names in headings
Per WP:TALKNEW, please remove my name from any section headings you have started discussing my conduct and per WP:NOTIFY please alert me to any substantive discussions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious why you are undoing content changes to an article on the basis of a discussion on a completely different talk page. Why would you remove sourced content and sources  from Abram Hoffer with an edit summary of "see talk:DID"?  Again, if you have a genuine problem with my edits - why are you commenting on a talk page instead of taking it to the appropriate venue where the larger community can judge them and apply the appropriate sanctions?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You still haven't removed my name from the section headings at talk:DID and Tom Cloyd's talk page. Is there a reason? Do you have any objection to me retitling?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances, yes. A decision I arrive at very reluctantly. If you continue your disruptive editing (about which there seems to be evolving an emerging concensus), I want other editors to be aware of this situation.  Enough is enough. Drjem3 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry WLU, but I strongly agree with Dr. Jem here. The titles should come down even though WLU is just 3 letters, not a name, but WLU you complain of titles while swearing at me and yes I know there are not rules that says that swearing is not allowed as you have pointed out, but it is poor manners. By the way Dr. Jem - your simple line on your user page is classic! That has been my experience since I have been here as well thanks to WLU and DG! I appreciate you Dr. Jem. You are wise and an expert in the area of psychology who should get respect for that and you have mine.~ty (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate input on article.
I'm working on an article over at User:Nucleophilic/Peter H. Proctor and would appreciate your imput if you have the time. Thanks. Nucleophilic (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will take a look. 22:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From my rather quick read, this looks OK to publish. I made one change and may make more later.   Also, suggest title be "Peter Proctor" rather than "Peter H Proctor."  Also may want to post notices over on melanin, etc. where there may be editors interested.  Otherwise,  plenty of third-party cites, etc.  Looks good. Drjem3 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI: I juat posted this as Peter Proctor. Nucleophilic (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. When you recently edited Peter Proctor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. My mistake.Drjem3 (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. When you recently edited Peter Proctor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Radical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will watch out in the future. Drjem3 (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Check it out
Since you have contributed materially to Peter Proctor, you might wish to look at an evolving situation there. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I will take a look and make suggestions for possible improvements as I get the time. Drjem3 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You might want to look at peter proctor bio
You might want to look at peter proctor bio Nucleophilic (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mediation for Peter Proctor
There is a formal mediation pending about the academic credentials of Peter Proctor available here. As a party to this discussion / dispute you are invited are invited to participate in this mediation. Thanks -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Peter_Proctor The mediation process appears to perhaps be moving forward, your reply to such is requested and also a deadline for your reply has been inquired upon, so please visit the link I post as soon as you see this to state your participation level. Inhouse expert (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warning notice
I've reported edit warring at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Check out talk:nobel prize controversies
Check out Talk:Nobel Prize controversies Nucleophilic (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)