User talk:Doc9871/Archive 4

Thanks

This is Kiaxar (talk · contribs) making a fool of himself. I don't even know if I've ever met a Persian! Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• No problem! I met a Persian girl in New York once - her parents were born in Iran, and she was an American who insisted that she was of Persian descent. Persia is more ancient and mysterious, you see. She was a really cool person :> Cheers... Doc talk

Please stay away from my talk page

Don't know who you are, but this is not particularly welcome on my talk page. You say I am smart, well I'm not dumb either, so I know exactly what you're talking about, and that my friend is entirely inappropriate, and unwelcome on my talk page. Don't bother coming back to my talk page again. Thanks Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 06:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"You're going places around here, kid! I can see your name in lights!"[1] Doc talk 06:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:RRHOF

Well, the user told me in this message that he was moving on. This, combined with the fact that he hasn't replied on the talk page in several days despite making other edits lead me to conclude that the dispute was over. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay by me, but with all the warnings and such... it all comes down to politics, man. Doc talk 04:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

LHB1239 / Skagit River Queen is back!

Blue Marble Egg is the new username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Pony Express (talk • contribs) 01:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw when you posted on DocofSoc's page, and I dismissed it. I dismissed it when you posted here initially. But the more I look at it, the more I think you are right. The Three Cups of Tea article is just too much of a coincidence to ignore. Doc talk 05:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

""look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under it." xo — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How did you escape the ire this time? A maintenance account, but there must be a few more. And still the report lingers in the backlog. Doc talk 13:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't really escaped. I was hiding. I recently had a redheaded moment (my Bad), a newbie is now busily chastising me. HMMM. Try Rollo V. Tomasi. A foolish thought, to say a sorry sight. Unabashedly yours, — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

[2]. Doc talk 23:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"I go, and it is done; the bell invites me. Hear it not, Duncan, for it is a knell That summons thee to heaven or to hell." Thou never cease to amaze me and I bow before thee. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• You done good. Screw your courage to the sticking place, And we'll not fail. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"If you can look into the seeds of time, And say which grain will grow, and which will not, Speak." Doc talk 09:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

---

Message delivered by Dominic at 08:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Thank you for the invite, but I can't make it. Doc talk 04:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library

Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch. Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227). Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street. Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time) The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required! Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to work on it, making this one, and William Poole has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Doc talk 04:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

John Miles/Eagles vandal

Thanks for your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I have blocked the latest IP, and also placed a short-term range block covering two of the IPs you mentioned and another one that I found. However, I am reluctant to place a range block for more than a short time, as a check of the history shows that a couple of weeks back at least one other editor edited in the same IP range. Also, since the vandal has also used another IP remote from that range, range-blocking is not guaranteed to be very effective. Article protection is likely to be more effective, and I have semiprotected some of the articles which have been repeatedly affected. However, I am unwilling to protect a lot of articles just because they have been subject to disruptive editing on one occasion. If you see the same editor return, please feel welcome to drop a note on my talk page: if I am around, the fact that I am now aware of the situation may mean that I can give a quicker response than you are likely to get at AIV. (However, I may not be around, so you may like to report to AIV too.) Also, if you find any unprotected article that has been attacked by the same user on several occasions (or even two occasions more than a day apart) let me know, and I will consider whether to semiprotect them. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, James! Thanks for the note; and fortunately this character seems to have picked a really bad target in the Eagles. I've always been a "big fan" of theirs, and I won't tolerate much screwing around with them when I see it. He's not going to get very far with his strange dreams of adding Eric Carmen and John Miles to their list of collaborators, and hopefully he will just give up that futile goal and go on to edit productively. Thanks as always for your help, James! Doc talk 10:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Beatles infobox

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Well rats. I thought things had been too quiet - at least in this area. I'm closing down for the night but I did get a couple items reversed. Thanks for the heads up and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Just looking at things like this make my head spin, knowing how much they have edited there. Such a miserable pest! I am not looking forward to cleaning up after him yet again, and I'm sure the list of IPs will grow as I find more. I may have to do things like this again when he's damaged a section beyond repair with his idiotic fake cast lists. Sigh. Have a good night :> Doc talk 04:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I would have no complaint....

if the admin had simply said...

You might not be aware, but your recent edit here (show diff) contained what appears to be a legal threat. Wikipedia takes such things very seriously, read more at WP:LEGAL, and if you wish to take legal action there are appropriate avenues for that. However, threats do not make for a positive editing environment and as such, if you cannot retract your public threats or reword them in line with Wikipedia policy within a (set a time frame), your actions will require that your editing privileges be blocked until further notice. Sincerely, your admin etc etc

Something like the above would have explained and made it clear that the user needed to change their behavior and requires no admin tool to be used, just the plain old power of communication. Our policies on Wikipedia make it clear that this is the first thing we should use, not the last. -- Avanu (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a warning template for legal threats: {{subst:uw-legal}}. I seldom see it used. Even when it is, or a custom message is used, the legal threat is usually not retracted until the editor is blocked. Then, they either retract it or they do not. It's a very serious thing to threaten, and if an editor, new or old, cannot understand that: it's their problem. I've seen a great many blocks like this, and it's very straightforward. Most of them you never see on AN/I. To get an editor blocked at AIV, they want a succession of escalating warning templates before blocking. But one crystal clear legal threat can get you blocked by any admin that comes across it. "There's the way it is, and the way it ought to be." Cheers... Doc talk 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that specific point. I find that discipline without good communication only begets more misunderstanding and injured egos. -- Avanu (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Some people cannot communicate effectively for our project, and they never, ever will be able to. Then we must use "discipline" to protect what's here. It's really not the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", you know. Vandals and trolls are people, too! But we can't have them editing here to damage things, and we can't have people that refuse to understand basic stuff editing here either unless they understand what is expected of them. Legal threats top the list for instant blocks, along with threats of suicide and violence. We all have to learn somehow. Cheers :> Doc talk 08:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

NOTE - Whatever your goal is it AN/I, you are really just digging a deep hole for yourself, not getting people to "think about it". Hear me now and believe me later. You are not only insinuating that the blocking admin should have their tools removed for the block, but that admins in general use their tools too haphazardly. You're not winning that argument. Doc talk 08:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:BITE is pretty clear. I've left the editor in question a notice similar to the one I crafted above, hopefully it will assist them in getting on the right track. I take a very dim view of what I perceive as unnecessary uses of power, and so I won't likely change my opinion considering how this situation was handled by that admin. It's very simple and quick to leave a personal note, and far too easy to hit the block button. I don't have sympathy for a one-sided exchange. -- Avanu (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't care if I *win* that argument. It is a provable fact that admins are known to sometimes use their tools haphazardly. There are policies in place that govern admin behavior and rather than simply acknowledging those policies, I see excuses made and a conscious denial of the requirement to follow those policies. It is hypocrisy and it is unnecessary. For rules to really matter, they must be applied fairly, not excused for those who have the power to excuse themselves. Why do you think the WP:ADMIN page says "They are never required to use their tools"? Because those early admins acknowledged the fact that they know people will behave as people do. When someone is given power, there is a temptation to abuse or misuse it, even by accident. But the real problem starts when no one is willing to simply say "I could do better next time." -- Avanu (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay... but don't say I didn't warn ya! You're making a mountain out of a molehill over this, and it's hardly over a landmark case. Doc talk 08:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. It's Good to meet you to. I founded George Coe in a swedish film on [www.voicechasers.com] on the following link:

I Know it's a old, but this what I've founded. Would you be on the look out for this IP Adress known as 76.180.216.52? He Changes IP Adress every 2-3 months.

You Have yourself a good day now.Reathough45 (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay - at least I know you didn't completely make up the Swedish credit. It doesn't seem correct, and I don't know if "voicechasers.com" is considered a reliable source to begin with. I'll look into it, but I can tell you right now that it's "dubious" at first glance. That leaves the question of the "TBA" credits. Unless you have a crystal ball, or a really good source, it is not recommended that you add future credits like that. I'll look at the IP as well. Cheers... Doc talk 04:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Whack not accepted

It's content created during a block or ban. It doesn't matter if they are only blocked for ten minutes ... if they evade the ban in order to create content, said content is subject to reversion or deletion. Content created before the block isn't subject to deletion on those grounds, and that's true for blocked, de facto banned, and formally banned editors.—Kww(talk) 17:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Read the column title carefully. It is Blocked including indefinitely blocked. That means all blocked editors fall into the category. Doc talk 17:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Read the row heading: "Content created during block or ban". If the content was not created during the block, it isn't subject to deletion or reversion, even if the editor is currently banned. If the content was created during the block, it's subject to reversion or deletion, even if the block was not indefinite. That's correct.—Kww(talk) 17:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this not in the blocking policy page? There is absolutely no mention in it whatsoever that I can see concerning what you are talking about. Doc talk 17:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it's always been wrapped up in sock puppetry and block evasion. Sock puppets are routinely reverted. Block evading IPs are routinely reverted. WP:CSD#G5 explicitly includes blocked editors, without reference to the block being indefinite. It's one of those cases where a literal reading of the blocking policy and understanding what we routinely do come in conflict, and, in Wikipedia, what we actually do is considered to be the functional policy.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I don't think we're going to get rid of the banning process by splitting hairs over it. Cheers :> Doc talk 18:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is really that people try to split hairs the other direction. People seem motivated to make a big deal out of banning someone, as if a formal banning ceremony will somehow make our blocks more effective. In practice, our blocking mechanisms leak like a sieve, and a persistent evader will get past them. It's only our social reaction that has any real effect at all. Unfortunately, that's variable, because some blocked editors get considerable sympathy from some sections of the community and others do not. The only part of "banning" that has any real effect is the concept of making it unacceptable for a sympathetic admin to unblock. For some of our more troublesome editors (ScienceApologist and A Nobody, for example), it was difficult to exhaust everyone's patience at the same time, so a formal ban was the only way to get the disruption to cease.—Kww(talk) 19:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarifications

I saw your comment on that WP:ORGNAME issue, and thought I might point out, that given that situation along with the Museum editor who got blocked as well, I made some minor editors for clarification on both the WP:ORGNAME page and the WP:ROLE page. Just curious what you think. -- Avanu (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're taking "bold" to a new level with the changes to the policy wording. Slow down: there's no deadline. It will have to be digested. Rome wasn't built in a day... Doc talk 07:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I was very careful to try and avoid changing the actual meaning. When the admin closed the museum editor username RfC, he closed it with the comment "If you don't like the policy, get it changed". Funny thing is I don't think anyone was really asking to change the policy, merely asking admins to follow it. So what would we possibly change it to? *sigh* Maybe blank it and put a redirect to WP:IAR. -- Avanu (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you. I don't think you're a bad editor; but asking Jimbo for "special admin privs" kind of eroded your credibility in my eyes when it comes to making "admin-level" decisions, including policy-writing. No offense. There could be some "adjustments" to your edits to the policy pages, if I had to bet on it. Doc talk 07:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it was wrong to ask Jimbo. I don't particularly care if he said no, and from what I can tell the RfA process is about as broken and mean-spirited as possible. So what harm was asking? Other than some folks maybe thinking it was impudent of me, I lost nothing. I'm on Wikipedia not because I desire a social network, but because I find it interesting and useful and a way to pass the time. I could have asked or cared sometime in the last 6 years, but I never bothered. Its disappointing that I should be judged so strongly on a simple request for something that's completely within Jimbo's discretion to grant. If the community felt it was improper for him to possess that power, they should take up the torch to take it away. But honestly I like the idea that he can shake things up if needed. -- Avanu (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I got so focused on that 'credibility' comment that I forgot to ask what you meant by 'admin level decisions'. If you mean closing RfC's or writing policy, you've bought into the idea that admins are somehow better than regular editors. The admin page is very explicit on this. The only real difference between admins and 'regular' editors is that they have the power tools. But you'd be surprised at the range of things a regular joe can do, and sometimes in better ways. I'll point you to a contentious editor earlier named Leaf Green Warrior‎. They have been causing problems by throwing the term 'racist' out a lot. I took the time to deal with the person and explain policy and de-escalate the situation and it looks like the editors are getting along a bit better now. Didn't require a superpower, just a willingness to communicate. -- Avanu (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Adminship is not "completely within Jimbo's discretion to grant". It was shockingly strange that you even assumed that you could be appointed as an admin by asking nicely on Jimbo's page. It would be cute; but you were serious. There's no way to undo that perception. Doc talk 08:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I'd rather have the perception of being somewhat pathetic for asking, than the perception that I abuse rights that have been entrusted to me. I guess I'm too much of a fan of the idea that the completely unexpected is sometimes healthy for things. For a thing that isn't a WP:Bureaucracy, we sure act like one. -- Avanu (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not about perception. It's about trust and competence. We have admins, we're always going to have them, and you are not going to shake up that system. Deal with it. Cheers... Doc talk 09:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. And for most of the admins, I have a lot of respect of appreciation. As with anything, it is the bad apples that ruin the flavor. I regret that my late night impulsive action led to a diminished perception of me, but hopefully I can improve on that over time. Cheers as well. -- Avanu (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. (narrows his eyes, with more interest than before) G'nite! Doc talk 09:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nash/Price

I also posted this on my own talk page, so feel free to reply wherever you want, but a good list of the free throw leaders is available here. Nash and Price are tied if you round to three decimal places, but Price is actually slightly ahead of Nash. (I realize NBA.com doesn't list them that way, but it does provide all the numbers you need to do the math yourself.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've spent a lot of time at NBA.com over the years, and I'm not convinced that they always know what they're doing. I've frequently seen rounding errors in stats, math errors with career numbers, etc. Heck, the 2011 All-Star numbers were never even added to most players' NBA.com profiles until this season. In my experience, basketball-reference, while not perfect, simply does a better job with stats.

But anyway, the fact is, we do have the totals for both Nash and Price, and it's just a matter of simple math to say who comes out ahead. I realize this might open up a new can of worms (eg, the issue of career highs in player stat tables), but when dealing with all-time leaders, I think it's OK to be very precise. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your last comment, but if you look through my contributions, I've been trying to update player's stats tables over the last few days. There are a lot to get through. Zagalejo^^^ 03:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I responded there. We've got dozens of players that need their stats updated: I did Nash, Kidd and Duncan today. There are many more to go. Doc talk 03:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I've gone through several teams today. I updated a large percentage of the articles last year, too. It's a pain in the neck. If I had my way, we wouldn't have the stats tables at all until the players retired. It's not something Wikipedia is equipped to handle. Zagalejo^^^ 03:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a lot of work, and I don't know how a bot could be set up to do it. If one could, this would be a perfect application for such a bot. At least we get a break when the season ends, right? Doc talk 03:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but then we have all the free agent rumors to deal with. :) Zagalejo^^^ 03:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(Groan) It never really ends, does it? I like it when they retire too: it's easier to "close the book" from an encyclopedic standpoint. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

So....

Is there something bugging you specifically? You seem to be acting rather odd about this report I made on AN/I and I don't see why it is inappropriate to tell the admins about a problem account. -- Avanu (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Everything is fine. Doc talk 10:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, well good to know. I think being up front is the best medicine and I just recall you saying something about keeping an extra eye on how I act after my request of Jimbo, so I didn't know if this was related somehow to being extra judgemental or something. Either way, I guess it worked out and we'll keep on truckin'. -- Avanu (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're not incorrect in your assumption as to why I commented. But it's really not my place to comment like that, and I don't want you to think I'm going to make a habit of it. Sometimes I do get a bit... "sassy", as you know. All is well :> Cheers... Doc talk 09:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Eagles Vandal

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

On wikibreak

Karel Bouley's page has been unprotected. SHE will appear ya know. Would you please keep an eye out. E-mail me if necessary. I go, and it is done; the bell invites me. Hear it not, Duncan, for it is a knell that summons thee to heaven or to hell." Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Will do! Doc talk 23:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

;-) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I do note that that Brucejenner has been there recently. Edits like this are far removed from her behavior; and I still wonder about a couple of the named accounts near the bottom here being not her, but actually him. She never was as grotesquely inappropriate as two of those accounts that I'm thinking of in particular, and she did claim that some of the socks were him. Of course, she also claimed that she has never socked, and we know that to be a complete lie. Anyway, enjoy your wikibreak! Doc talk 05:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It was more than two of the named suspected SRQ socks that I switched to Brucejenner (Bj). More like six. I've always had my doubts about them being her and not him, which is why they were only listed as "suspected" in the first place. The main reasons I finally switched them were:

1. Seeing Bj's recent activity at the Bouley article.
2. Knowing that he is certainly not the same editor as SRQ.
3. SRQ's complaints to me about some of the socks being him and not her.
4. The juvenile and often disgusting nature of the edits of the suspected socks, which are much closer to Bj than SRQ.
5. The similarity in naming to Bj's other suspected socks.

Anyhoo, they say that hindsight is 20/20. If you think I'm wrong about any of these, you know where to reach me. Cheers :> Doc talk 08:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

New Category

Do you not mind if I create a category made of "Category:Films set in the Midwest" do you?--GoShow (...............) 22:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, or why you would ask me if I minded anything you did. It's a free wiki - knock yourself out. Doc talk 23:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Johnwaynegacymug1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Johnwaynegacymug1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mercy buckets. Doc talk 09:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

An editor reverted your restoration of the image, but I reverted them, on the basis that, like publicity photos, mug shots may technically be copyrighted, but they are de facto in the public domain, since the copyright holder does not make any effort to control the image's distribution, and that means there is essentially zero legal exposure to the WMF from the use of the photo. Anyway, you might want to keep an eye on the article.

BTW, the mugshot is the best one I've ever seen, he looks calm and natural, neither artificially "happy" nor stressed by his situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, BMK! The edit summary of "Take this to the talk page and stop restoring without consensus" is... interesting. Since 2009 the image has been there, and the few efforts to remove it over time were met with: consensus to keep it. Hullaballoo was Bold in removing the image, that bold move was Reverted, and the next step, according to the essay, would be the Discuss part. Not some other editor reverting it, claiming that the bold move somehow needed "consensus" before reverting it... when the original consensus had it there. Running around claiming it fails #8 and removing it without tagging it is not going to fly. Tag it appropriately and take it to FfD, or find another target. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ruby Tuesday

Hi. FYI Notification of change in RM proposal heading, I had to strike out "and the actress". In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...

Didn't mean to get your goat or touch a nerve, or whatever. As I said at ANI, I don't know why you seem to dislike Jack/Rabbit, although if I had to guess, I'd guess that you probably have ample cause. I say so only because I remember he was on the dramah boards for what seemed like forever; my interest didn't extend so far as to try to sift through the mountains of text to figure out what it was all about. ( And I'm not asking now, of course, and don't really want to know. ) Anyway, I have a few users, myself, who I find so odious that I might have responded to them the way you did to Jack/Rabbit, in a similar circumstance, so I'm sorry my comment chafed. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I just saw you're a wiki-ogre. I take it all back, and wave my private parts at your aunties, then. :-P Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Love that movie! "I'm French! Why do you think I have zees outra-geous accent, you silly king?" Doc talk 11:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! should be the required opening sentence for every new thread at ANI, imo. Yes, I love that movie, too. I don't normally work in the theatre, but through a happy combination of circumstances a few years ago, I had the opportunity to work late one night as a stage electrician for the visit of the national tour of Sir Spam-a-lot to my city. I'm well into middle age, but the greatest thing was this: There were these two cute, giggly young girls, probably barely 18, if that, who were assigned to me as helpers with the blessing of the local stage union. They were probably some theatre administrator's or union official's daughters or something.

At one point, during a lull in the work on stage, I commented to them that it must seem kind of strange to them to hear all the older stage hands, carpenters, electricians, and such, telling so many inside jokes about a comedy team that disbanded before they were born, and that they probably knew nothing about. They both looked at me like I had an arrow sticking through my head, looked at each other, and then for the next five hours, until we were through, ran lines constantly with each other from The Holy Grail and from the television show itself. It was so great to see that they loved Monty Python as much as those of us who grew up with them, or even more. --OhioStandard (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's awesome! I hope they knew Life of Brian as well: "There's no Messiah here! There's a mess alright, but no Messiah!" "Oh, shut up, Big Nose! Well, 'e 'as got a really big nose!" And The Meaning of Life: "Can we have your liver, then?" "It's too good a cake not to eat!" Brilliant stuff, that Python; and super-advanced for us 13-year-old (at the time) American geeks starved for dry wit. I still wonder if WP's "duck test" was slightly ripped off from the Grail - hmmm? Doc talk 12:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Voice Cast Vandal-related and more

I have heard about what the unknown vandal had did with Dan Vs. by adding a false appearance by Cheri Oteri. I was able to correct the cast list. As for the references, the only references that I can think up would end up being from VoiceChasers or Internet Movie Database. What do you think on those references to modify the Additional Voices? Rtkat3 (talk) 9:40, May 31 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, our little friend loves to add cast lists that only exist in some strange fantasy world - thanks for correcting his mess. The major problem with IMDB is that anyone can edit it, and I have seen stuff on there that is completely wrong. I have little doubt that the VCV and similar types do the same thing on that site that they do here with the bogus credits. I haven't looked at VoiceChasers in detail, but I think that since allmusic is considered a reliable source for WP that allmovie would be a good place to start looking into for movie refs. I'll look into the issue more when I have more time (been a busy week IRL), and thanks for the note! Cheers :> Doc talk 04:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

They're the same colour as what appeared on my talk page... somewhat more appetising though ;) Egg Centric 00:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hah! Yeah, that picture was horrid. Cheers :> Doc talk 00:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DJCarpenter.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:DJCarpenter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No need to wait until June 22nd, Hazard-Bot: I nominated it for Speedy deletion already because I had replaced it with a free version. Cheers... Doc talk 06:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiki too hard

Hi Doc. There's detailed directions for closing the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions. I would give you a hand, but I gotta go to bed. See you later, -- Dianna (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw no need to keeping it open, as it's very clearly not going to get deleted per SNOW, and is only attracting more "drahmaz". Meh. A victory for us all! Cheers :> Doc talk 05:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW: things have changed so much - it's like déjà vu [3] all over again! Until he decides to ask for those subpages to be deleted (yet again) after announcing another round of socks, laughably waffling between "outing"/"harassment" and "owning his past accounts"... yawn. And there's quite a few moar socks to add to the sock drawer - but we should not go building any "shrines", right?[4] If he/they really were "good hand" socks of Jimmy himself it would all make a lot more sense. Otherwise, it's just more of the same old characteristic bullplop. Seeya! Doc talk 08:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced "TBA" credits

3 month block. Feel free to let me know in September if it happens again. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - it's awfully hard to get through to someone who simply will not acknowledge anyone else under any circumstances. I was actually encouraged that they had started learning something when I saw them deleting their own (and others) crap; how stupid of me! They seem to always go back to the same pattern. I expect no unblock request. Cheers! Doc talk 08:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting

I thought this was interesting. IP User:71.183.182.11 makes up fake Broadway musicals and inserts them into articles. The behavior is very much like our Voice Cast Vandal, who makes up voiceover credits. I don't think it's the same person -- for one thing the Fake Musical Vandal is more imaginative -- but it's a very similar M.O.

There's a WP:AN thread here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Cheers :> Doc talk 07:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not certain, but User:75.25.128.12 might be the VCV - only one edit to the Michael Dorn article so far. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I saw your revert of this one BMK and had the same thought. The VCV almost always located to the New York area so I don't think this person is the same. Unless hes on vacation. Several months ago we had a few IPs from Mexico making the same kind of edits and we were afraid that he had moved - or was recruiting others from abroad. As ever thanks to all for their vigilance. MarnetteD | Talk 04:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted my deletion - it turns out that IMDB had a listing for Dorn in World of Warcraft. My error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Charles Manson Philosophy

Instead of merely deleting, how about suggesting how it can be referenced? Or allow references to be added... I was in the process of adding references before you so hastily removed the entire section. I appreciate it being a sensitive subject, but it still insist that the section is essential. --Torsrthidesen (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it per WP:NOR - tacking a couple of references on at the end (that do not support the material) doesn't count as citing the lengthy addition properly. I would suggest that you hash out that addition you want to make on the talk page or in your sandbox before inserting it there: I am merely one of many editors that would have made the revert. A sentence such as "Though dismissed by critics are being nothing more than nonsense, there are clear relationships with established religions." is pretty much what we want to avoid, as it is original research that has nothing in the way of references to back it up. It may be true, but how do the rest of us know that without a source to back it up? I do not object to the nature of the section you are trying to add at all; but it must be written and referenced in a more professional manner. We can't start with a bunch of original research as a basis for the addition: look at available sources when writing it to begin with. WP:V and WP:CITE should help you with identifying reliable sources. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI

What did that piece of trash at ANI have to do with you? I'm just curious, but you don't have to answer if you prefer not to.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Never seen him before that I know of. He's not here to build an encyclopedia, and that's pretty obvious. I guess he took objection to my removal of his trollish thread. I'm surprised he's not blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of someone. Cheers :> Doc talk 23:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it, I didn't notice that in the ANI history, and I looked at the IP's history too quickly and thought the two edits he made to ANI were about the later topic only. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure! He's obviously an editor (probably blocked already) who has had a past issue with that other editor (probably due to bad editing), and it looks like he is engaging in a primitive attempt at outing. Hopefully he won't repeat his mistake again. Cheers :> Doc talk 23:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Curious?

Hello, Doc9871. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Arcandam (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I appreciate your candor, but I also must say that I'm not a fan of this. To each his own, of course. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Me neither. It is necessary for my safety. Arcandam (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Now, I should tell you that you're losing some "street cred" by splitting hairs over alleged "canvassing" and alleged "acting on canvassing". In fact: you should probably just not accuse anyone of canvassing (or suggest their response was nullified by being canvassed) until you fully understand what it is you're accusing them of. Just my 2p. Cheers... Doc talk 07:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't actually split the hairs, because the canvassing is relatively unimportant. I can smell socks (especially worn socks, my feet smell) from a mile away. My spidey-sense starts tingling if I see canvassing. And I did found some evidence to back my statements about canvassing up. I won't post it here, because that would encourage drama and violate WP:OUTING, but you can safely assume I have my reasons. To me the important part is understanding how someone in good faith can create an article that points out problems on Wikipedia, without actually intending to do that. Arcandam (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes... stealth canvassing - I know all about it. But that's not what you said. You said that there was on-wiki canvassing because of the notification on Bidgee's talk page. I can very easily show the diffs for that. This is getting interesting... Doc talk 08:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Talk about a landslide victory - Dang! Sorry 'bout being ornery over the Steve Nash/Mark Price FT% thing. You handled it well. Good luck with the new responsibilties! Glad to have an NBA admin, too. Cheers! Doc talk 18:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

137.118.177.53

The vandal on the WKSI-FM page has vandalized under a previous IP (that time it was 74.206.66.225), the same ISP (Randolph Telephone Company) and the same location (Asheboro, NC). It is impossible for the IP to tell what WKSI is broadcasting unless he is listening via the web. I live in WKSI's listening area and I can confirm that they do carry the programming the IP is removing. Can't source it since it is OR, but I can confirm it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's why I was saying that their edits are not vandalism: removing OR and/or uncited material is not considered vandalism. Especially if they are using explanatory edit summaries. If this IP is somehow related to a blocked user, it should be made clear in the report. AIV runs like a very well-oiled machine, FWIW. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It could be an already blocked vandal/sock, but I am not sure which one. We have several, it could also just be your standard run-of-the-mill vandal or some kid bored on summer vacation, who knows. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

VCV

Using 75.251.0.211, saw him on Pat Buttram. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Marnette got him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Buttram, Jim Cummings, Thomas & Friends, Yu-Gi-Oh! stuff... and they're on a cell phone in New York state. Looks like him, alright. Cheers :> Doc talk 19:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I pinged JamesBWatson in the hope that we might get a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Responded, thanks :> Doc talk 08:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

My Ghost Story

Ok, I will clean it up. Since I created this article page, I've just put in my own summaries with some info that I searched for online. But lately I haven't found any summary info so I decided to look for info on the episodes from the Bio Channel website. Sue Kastle (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Cryptic reversion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_denial&diff=501675147&oldid=501662179 Hi! I made 3 edits to this page, one involving a quote. They were all reverted cryptically citing "Source?". I reverted, asking for an explanation. You have now reverted all three saying "That's not what the quote says. That's what "Source?" meant.)" I do not understand a) why you reverted 2 edits unconnected to the quote, and b) what you mean by " That's not what the quote says"- the quote is taken directly from the source, and your explanation is confusing.93.96.148.42 (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So it is - my apologies. I thought you were adding something that wasn't in the source because the first quote was replaced with something much longer and seemingly unrelated to what was there. Doc talk 22:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts and quality work lately

		The Music Barnstar
		For all the great work you do on our music articles. Thank you. RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 23:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your creation of (and tireless contributions to) the massive IP list of a newly discovered, long-term-abuse vandal. RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 23:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all you do in the fight against vandalism. Thank you RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 23:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! A "Triple Lindy" of barnstars! (see the movie if you haven't - gotta love Rodney) We're almost at a "month-to-month" basis of listing now (excluding the months of July-September, and beyond, of 2010, with the "Alvin" fiasco), and the gaps in 2011 will hopefully fill in. Perhaps the vandal was committed to a mental institution at the time, explaining the lack of edits for that year. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" request for formal mediation

FYI, I have requested formal mediation here to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. Feel free to add your name there if you so wish. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Retirees

Just a word in defence of retirees. I retired because I couldn't find the time to research and source my contributions to the standard required. And I don't think there are many people whoe seek acknowledgement in what is, after all, a voluntary endeavour. Any voluntary activity isn't really binary: you're not either in or out. If a casual browser can add something, then maybe they should be allowed out of retirement now and again ? Having said all that, I can't stand people who flounce out. If you want recognition, go on TV. 86.12.129.2 (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what this is regarding. I support the right to retire, or not to retire, and I did a complete 180° long ago on my views on anonymous IP editing. When editors intentionally abuse anonymous editing is usually when I get perturbed about it. Cheers :> Doc talk 10:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a section on your Talk page slagging flouncing retirees. Just thought I'd put our side of the argument, but then realised I agrre with you. 86.12.129.2 (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh - I took most of that from a few essays on the matter. I feel bad for those good editors that have retired, but I see it as them "giving up" on this as well. So I have little sympathy. The wiki will only truly die when the Google hits for everything one looks up no longer jumps to Wikipedia. Until then, the old guard will be replaced by the new guard, similar to many cycles in this world. Doc talk 10:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

71.183.181.200 and Eagles (band) article

On a mostly unrelated issue from our Hanoi friend, I read your latest post more closely and didm't realize it was you who was in danger of violating 3RR. It wouldn't take much for someone to find out you and I have conversing often lately. If the IP reverts again, I think we both should refrain from undoing the edit and let someone else handle it so it doesn't look like we are tag-teaming him, even though the situation arose innocently and we never discussed prior to my revert that I should jump in. Is that cool? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If they add it again I will take them to WP:3RRNB - the reason I mentioned 3RR is because it may not be a clear-cut exemption to 3RR. For me, that is: you are free to revert him at least twice more if he is foolish enough to restore it. There's no tag-teaming to worry about: the WP:BURDEN is on them, and their edit is provably false so far. We can't allow him to reinsert it because it simply isn't true. Doc talk 01:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

OK sounds goood. I forgot to add that yes, he should be reported for edit warring if he does it again, regardless. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'll hunt for more IPs when I get home - on a mobile right now and that stuff is impossible to do on an iPhone. A profile is emerging, and his switching from The Carpenters to the Eagles is not surprising, as these types usually get chased off their favorite topics after awhile. They usually return to them as well. More later - Cheers :>

Saw this change and I instinctively reverted as it is almost certainly you-know-who. Looked into it further and it appears to be accurate so I undid my revert. Just letting you know I'm still keeping an eye out, but I do have a question. I'm not entirely confident in my sources I have been using to check his changes. Is there a good source you know of to check these sorts of things? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I usually check with allmusic since I was told long ago that they are a reliable source (unlike something like WP or IMDB where anyone can edit). It's him alright, and hopefully he's beginning to understand that he better stop vandalizing and keep his edits accurate. I'm not overly confident about it, but stranger things have happened. Thanks for the note! Doc talk 16:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the IP's edit to the Long Run album, which I just reverted, is totally bogus. Those songs were not released as singles, and the last "single" (and its "B" side) that he included on the album a) isn't on the album to begin with and b) certainly was not released as a single 10 years after the album came out. Still Got the Blues (For You) is a Gary Moore song - look familiar?[5] Same pest, same bullshit edits. As you noted he mixes in truth with fiction sometimes. Doc talk 02:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Landry Fields' father

Landry Fields' father Steve played at Miami of Ohio, not Stanford. The cited reference states this clearly. This is my first time doing something like this, apologies if I have made any errors in etiquette. Purplo (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No you didn't: I guess I did. You are correct that his father played for Miami of Ohio, and another editor just realized the same thing and corrected the edit to what you changed it to.[6] Sorry about my error, but this page has been hit a lot recently and I thought you were changing Landry's alma mater to Miami of Ohio when in fact you were 100% correct in your edit. Sorry 'bout that! Cheers :> Doc talk 03:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Not sure what you think I meant, but it wouldn't hurt you to leave comments where they are. -- Avanu (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't move anything but the hat on the closed discussion. Adding to it after it was closed was encouraging more comments... after it was closed. That could be considered "sticky" in anyone's book. You want the "Final thought"? Have at it. I may opine a lot myself around here, but at 40% article space edits, I've got a somewhat decent balance to my contributions. At 13% article space edits, you may want to rethink your role here and stop attempting to be "the sole voice of reason" quite so often. Making a mountain out of a molehill works sometimes, but it's good to know when to move on. "Take care of yourself... and each other". Cheers... Doc talk 15:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a strong desire to see problematic behavior corrected, but I hold those in positions of responsibility to a higher standard. I fail to see anything that was stopping Risker from simply re-blocking the guy with a new block rationale. But to leave a rationale in place that set new precedent and was highly interpretive of the policies, especially when a large number of people had problems with it just seems stubborn. I have no problem with admins doing what they need to do, as long as they can intelligently explain why they did it and how that lines up with the policies we have in place. If you're going to make up new rules off the cuff, expect people to make noise about it. Simply being supportive and saying 'we trust you' is fine in some situations, but while we're doing that, a user sits under a block that they potentially shouldn't be. Do things right or don't do them. As for your 40%, if I didn't care about pushing for good behavior, my percentage would be there too, and probably even higher. But I care. Sue me for that if you wish. -- Avanu (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I might also mention that it isn't a sign that I'm not contributing to have a lot of edits to article Talkpages as well. I often run into people who don't initially agree with an edit and since we're the encyclopedia that anyone can have an opinion on, we have to sit there and educate editors about why this or that should happen, avoid an edit war, and wait around until people see some obvious consensus. It slows things down, but it is the way Wikipedia works. -- Avanu (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

40% ain't that great as far as the "content creators" are concerned, I can tell you. That means I'm blabbering over half the time. Blocking for "Not here to build an encyclopedia", as has been said already, is hardly a new precedent. That user was not the one to make a big stink over, and I'm sorry you didn't see that as far away as I and others clearly did. You should trust the judgement of our admins, not blindly, but especially when dealing with some random troll that was obviously handled appropriately. If you don't choose your "battles" wisely you run the risk of losing credibility. Believe that or not. "Please always do your best to live up to that trust and bear that responsibility with honor." Is this really supposed to be advice to be taken to heart by all admins? Or was it just getting a "last word" in on a closed discussion that didn't go the way you thought it should? Good luck, Avanu. Doc talk 16:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion went exactly the way it should. The user was re-blocked with a new and more valid basis in policy. The only concern would be that it is essentially ArbCom saying "trust us", *but* they are specifically set up to deal with complicated situations, so we need to have faith that their hidden rationale is sufficient. And *that* makes it a good block rationale. It only took a moment for Roger to re-enact the block, and what is most surprising is that Risker didn't just do that in the first place. Personally, I think Admins should be given a tremendous amount of leeway in when they feel they need to use the tools, but that kind of latitude requires an equal measure of responsibility to the community at large. And one example of that is that when they take a strong action, they back it up with solid reasons. -- Avanu (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Since NewtonGeek was never unblocked, he could not have been re-blocked: the block rationale was changed. I assume it's because the guy was e-mailing every Arb left and right and just not on the level in general. This was not the poster-child of an unfair block, but there will be more out there, I'm sure. Cheers... Doc talk 16:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By the way, I am reminded of a core principle when you deal with a manager/boss. When you do things that don't acknowledge the authority of the boss, whatever the situation is, no matter how small, it tends to make it worse. You can screw up really bad, but if you go to the boss humbly and say "Boss, I know you said to do X and I tried and screwed up", they are more likely to be ok with it than if you just decided to not heed their request and do your own thing. In other words, it is often not the act itself, but the way we handle it that matters, especially when you are dealing with a person in authority.

In the case of an Admin, many times their role puts them into a position of authority, BUT our system at Wikipedia puts every action of an Admin subject to community review. Admins don't always respond well to being told their action was wrong, and while I acknowledge that it is human nature to be resistant to correction, and while I acknowledge that our consensus-based system may not be the best approach, Admins need to graciously accept the community's input and unfortunately the current system is what we have here.

When Admins fail to recognize policy and guidelines as having authority over their own actions, and fail to accept a critical review, then we generally end up in these stupid debates. I say 'stupid' because they would be easy to avoid and easy to resolve quickly, but people seem to fall into the "don't hassle the admin camp" or, like me, into the "follow the rules camp". But don't think this means I am always hellbent on one side or the other. BWilkins was getting a lot of flack recently at Jimbo's page, and I feel like it went to far. There's a point where he acknowledged his faults, and for me, that's good enough. For some people, it seemed they want blood. I just want to know that the message has been heard and the admin wants to do better. And really, isn't that kind of the same for everyone, admin or not? -- Avanu (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks at an article talk page

There are numerous personal attacks on me at the Sgt Pepper talk page. Other editors have tried to "hat" them but one or two users keep restoring them. It is my understanding that personal attacks can and should be removed from the talk page. Can you offer any advice in this regard, Thanks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Interpreting civility enforcement is not my specialty. I've dealt with enough vested contributors to know how arbitrarily it can be enforced. Choose your friends wisely! Personal attacks are the cheapest way to debate, and it's best to let them roll off your back, ignore them and not reciprocate them. The name-callers will look all the more foolish and negative if you rise above it. Doc talk 05:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's good advice, thanks Doc! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your expertise is required

Hello, Doc9871. I assume you are the WP expert in SRQ-related stuff. Could you take a look at 96.245.165.52 (talk · contribs) contribution and its possible relation to Dante8's SPI? Is it the same user? Is he/she doing it intentionally? Is it harmful enough to start an SPI? Thank you in advance. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 19:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I do not believe that SRQ is Dante8, but the IP you mention is certainly Dante8. They seem to be editing while logged out again, but I'm not 100% sure if it's technically considered socking. Dante8 isn't exactly an editor who likes to talk to others, so a note on their talk page reminding them to be careful about editing while logged out would likely get no response. Doc talk 19:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyhow, I tried to remind them both to log in. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Dante8's unwillingness to communicate is unfortunate, and there are likely other IPs they have used besides the ones in the SPI and above (like 71.175.77.205 (talk · contribs) and 98.114.45.178 (talk · contribs)). Cheers :> Doc talk 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sellers

Doc, I wonder if I could ask you for a comment on the following thread regarding the inclusion of information about Sellers' children: Talk:Peter Sellers#Inverse padding structure accentuates negative over positive? Following your comment further up the Sellers talk page I added in three anecdotes about his relations with his children. This inclusion of these details has raised a series of comments from user:Wikiwatcher1 about them and about the personal information as a whole. As a broadly independent participant in this, could I ask your opinion? The article is now also at Peer Review and I am sure that if the balance is wrong it will be noted accordingly. Thanks very much if you have the time! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

We'll find some middle ground and get this through at least GAN. Don't count your chickens before they hatch, of course. Doc talk 08:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. I agree - and I think that the various reviews that are coming up will advise accordingly on the balance too. WW may well be right, but I'm not convinced that they are and I think the reviews will advise further on that aspect. I think you're right - a common ground will be found somewhere along the line! - Thanks again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's all we can do. I'm a Republican by political nature (Boo! Hiss! I know ;P) who deals with the complete opposite political ideology all the time. No whitewashing for this article, especially when it's been all over the news. "That's my story and I'm sticking to it." Doc talk 09:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree - it has to be a 'warts and all' or it's just dishonest and I won't be party to something that's obviously misleading. All his friends and family commented on it (let alone his legions of detractors), so it's fair to reflect that I feel. We'll see and I have no doubt that there will be others who feel that the balance is somehow wrong! Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

VCV note

Thanks for your note. Apologies for putting my new item in the wrong spot I was thinking two digits would come before three rather than putting all the "2s" together. I'll try to remember that but I can't guarantee anything :-) As to restructuring the page I don't know if this Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vandalism by 201.19.*.* would be any help but I thought I'd show it to you. It was set up by User:Lambiam. On a different note it looks like I was the 8th or 9th person bring about the retirement. Cheers and have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 15:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For your help today. Chip123456 17:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :> Doc talk 19:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

TY

I just wanted to say thanks for helping clarify the wt:ban discussion. Well done. — Ched :  ?  13:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Anytime! Cheers :> Doc talk 20:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

EL's

Hi Doc, thanks for that. While I'm here I may as well revamp the EL's in Holloway. Is the Getty image website OK to use? -- Cassianto^Talk 13:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't link to a Getty or a Corbis as an external link for images; but at least they have a more legit claim to copyright that Grooveshark or YouTube. They bought it fair and square, and they charge the rest of the world to use the images after they've bought them out. Why give them more advertising here for nothing? Doc talk 13:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see why it could be a form of "advertising" but on a more important note, most of the Getty images are rare and would benefit the reader if they choose to click on it. Sure you have to buy them, which may or may not be of a direct result of linking it on WP, but let's face it, most readers just want to see a picture, not to buy one. Not at their prices anyway! :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 13:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's your call - Getty doesn't fall under WP:ELNEVER or even WP:ELNO that I am aware of. Doc talk 13:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You ever going to give up that grudge?

I notice that Nyttend hatted those responses. I really don't understand why you seem to have a such a disdain for me. I guess you certainly can't make everyone happy, but I've never understood how some people can keep up negative attitudes for very long.

I harbored a bit of a grudge against SarekOfVulcan for a while, because I thought he had acted like a jerk. (Based on your previous behavior, you'll probably try to find a way to attack me for that admission. But who can say.) But I assumed good faith, I moved on, and from what I can tell we're cool now. Obviously both of us are still going to do things that won't always make the other one happy, but I think admitting the bad and being willing to focus on the good helped.

So are you really going to fulfill your promise from a while back to put me on watch, simply because you didn't agree with me in one thing a while back, or are you going to just let bygones be bygones? -- Avanu (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a grudge or disdain for you, and I do not interfere with your activities (i.e. I'm not really "watching" you). But yet again you were opening an ill-advised thread at AN/I rather than discuss with the editor you had a problem with, and I was asking if you were actually listening to the multiple editors who were telling you the exact same thing. The very last sentence of your last post before I chimed in indicated that you: a) still believe them to be personal attacks/threats and b) you still believe you were right to remove them. Your response to me was far less collegial in tone than my question to you, including "borderline" personal attacks; and it was not hard at all to find a recent diff of you using a article talk page to comment on another editor's behavior, which is exactly what you were complaining about. My main interest in the "drama boards" is to end threads that have reached their logical conclusion, and it seemed that one had. If you're going to open threads like that, which should be a last resort, you should expect some flak. And "personal threats", which seems to be a portmanteau of "personal attacks" and "threats", in the thread title just may indicate that you might have thought about opening the thread a little more carefully before you actually did. Cheers... Doc talk 01:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My impression of what you said to me was: "Don't you get it yet? You're wrong." Yet at the Article's Talk page, the commentary was clearly not helpful. Regardless of whether it rises to the level of personal attack, its not good stuff. Its good to hear you tell me directly that you're not holding a grudge. I appreciate that. -- Avanu (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I only really hold grudges and have disdain for those I feel are deliberately trying to damage the wiki by making it less credible, like this fine little fellow I just had sent on a three month vacation because they refuse to stop adding hoax material. There is no question in my mind that you mean well with your contributions, so I would have no reason to hold a grudge. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just watched a snow flurry

Isn't it easier, perhaps wiser, to leave ordure on another editor's talk page when it appears, whatever the quality of the ordure? Nothing is urgent in Wikipedia, though it does seem like it is at times. I have a firm policy on my talk page that stuff like that should stay there in plain sight. It says far more about the distributor of the ordure than the recipient :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to what the indefinitely blocked troll abusing multiple accounts for block evasion was writing - no. We can "nuke that from orbit". It should be rev-deleted as well, as none of it is worth anything. Doc talk 10:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh I know it's worthless. I was thinking that it causes more hassle by reacting to it than by simply blocking and ignoring the muckspreader. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

He just kept going, I reverted him a bunch of times, and admins were asleep at the switch. It happens sometimes in the "wee" hours. Finally he was blocked (by the admin whose name he had ripped off). He'll get tired of it soon enough if there are people spoiling his little fun games. Cheers :> Doc talk 10:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds

Here the reference is reliable : http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=11826 sur Anime News Network. --Skarock (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but here it says you (meaning you, me, or anyone with a computer) can "contribute information to this page". How is it a reliable source if anyone can contribute to it with little to no editorial oversight? We can't cite WP for material presented here, for instance. Doc talk 08:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

ANN's Encyclopedia is not a reliable source. It is based on user generated content and contains many errors. See WP:A&M/ORS#Situational for details about what part of ANN can be used as a source and what parts are unreliable. —Farix (t | c) 08:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on that! Cheers :> Doc talk 03:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Congrats

Your Dutch is much better than the IPs. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You should see my Farsi ;> Doc talk 14:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox basketball biography help

Hey, I found that you are experienced editor here, so I wanted to ask you how to put header colors for the Euroleague teams. Actually, I have created all these necessary stuff like the team colours and all the other pages that NBA has and it is 'connected' to that 'function' of changing colours to infobox header when you add team to player who is on that 'list'. Hehe even I laugh how am I explaining it to you. What I don't know is how to add Template:Euroleague color next to Template:NBA color in the Template:Infobox basketball biography. And second thing when you finish that (oh here I am asking you to do it, not just to answer), can you change in the code this: Here is an example, you have team from the Euroleague officially called PBC CSKA Moscow, but it is known as CSKA Moscow. And how to code works when you type in team parameter the following CSKA Moscow without putting team_link parameter, to look like this... If you just put CSKA Moscow in team parameter it will redirect you to the Sports organization CSKA Moscow in this case... Understand anyhing what I wanted to say? I was very unclear, sorry.. AirWolf (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Unfortunately, header colors are not something I am knowledgeable about. Things I don't know (and there are a great many) I usually pick up from other users as I go along, and I've never had to tackle a problem such as yours. My best advice would be to first ask Zagalejo (talk · contribs), an admin who is very knowledgeable about basketball-related stuff. Hopefully he can give you the answers you are looking for. Good luck, and Cheers :> Doc talk 03:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Police

Please refrain from removing content from my talk page. Factocop (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the "police". It's not really your talk page, either, but I'll respect your wishes. Have a blast. How the hell you're still editing with your history is beyond me. Oh, wait. You're one of them "reformed" users. Pfft. Doc talk 14:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing that annoyed me was that I had not had a chance to even read the comments. Factocop (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's in the page history. They were evading their block and are very likely a sock of an indefinitely blocked user. This seems to be an accepted practice nowadays, to let people sock as long as their "alternate accounts" aren't actually being "abusive" with every edit. It's a crock of shit, really. Enjoy! Doc talk 14:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when one of my watched editors has garbage posted on their page, I might take the poster to AIV, but generally I leave it up to the watched editor to decide what to do with it. I might make an exception when it's an attack on someone besides that particular editor, or when it's outrageously vile. In this case, it was just a troll pretending to be Factocop to try and get him into further trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished. Though after seeing his demeanor, especially toward those who are removing garbage spewed by sockpuppets, I suddenly understand why his block log is so long. Trusilver 14:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying I was right to remove the comments: I very, very rarely remove other editors' comments from anyone's talk page, including my own. I was doing the RBI thing, and since I can't block (and never, ever wish to be able to have that "power"), I reported him to AIV between reverting the trolling. And he was shut down within about a minute of my report there. Go figure... Doc talk 14:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless a troll has done significant damage to an article, especially a BLP, I usually wait until someone has taken care of them at AIV before trying to revert his garbage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The trolling has been restored.[7] My mistake. Doc talk 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but a user should have a say on what happens on their talkpage. I've removed the comments as they are slightly inflamtory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factocop (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

Hello Doc9871; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Gawrsh! I don't know which side to take on this one. It's a very tough situation indeed. I'll take my time and do my research before chiming in - thanks for the note! Doc talk 15:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

See if you can find even one style guide that supports "The", none of us could. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeff Beck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Argus (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) 10:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

re: scrunchy talk page

Hi Doc - just wanted to check in with you re: my "scrunchy" talk page - I've tweaked some templates that might have been causing display issues, and I wanted to know if it was any better for you?--Cailil ^talk 22:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Cailill! My laptop had a meltdown last night and I haven't been able to fix it yet, but I should be able to fix it later tomorrow (I hope). On my iPhone now, which your pages looked normal on anyway. Thanks for getting back to me - I'll let you know soon. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I got my laptop working again after looking through some Mac forums: needed to hit Shift-Control-Option with the power button and release them all at the same time, then power up. Yeesh! Anyway, the problem still exists when I view your page using the Safari browser, but not when I use Firefox (I probably should have checked that browser the other night). I am baffled as to why Safari is giving me such trouble with only your pages, but at least know we know it doesn't do the same thing with Firefox. Doc talk 04:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doc - Yeah that's a good place to start. I'm looking at my pages with Safari 4.1 without issues - I'm guessing you're using a later version? If you can identify your version of Safari it'll help me replicate and hopefully solve it! Personally I've avoided Safari for stability reasons for years (especially with WP) I find Camino a good browser alternative to Firefox for Mac OSX. But I'll try to fix this for safari ppl--Cailil ^talk 13:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Mooshie

Hi! I forgot about that account - yes, that makes the distinction clearer. I was going by their respective off-wiki accounts. with Mooshie using a separate account and getting separate contracts. There was also a difference in approach, which might be of some interest, as Mooshie tried to maintain a couple of fairly active accounts, whereas the other editor only appears to use an account once. I've assumed that there is a common, regular account as well, but haven't been able to track that down yet. That has changed, of course - for example, Witchta.Wool appears to be a recent sock of Mooshie (not yet blocked - I'll raise it at the SPI), which only has three edits.

In regard to your comment at AN/I, there's been a recent change towards outsourcing by a number of the bigger players who have been detected, which is how Wiki-PR is handling things. This is going to make CU data much less effective, unfortunately. - Bilby (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I wish WilliamH weren't on Wikibreak, but life happens. He knows a ton about Mooshie, and would be interested to know that he is a key player in this outfit. I doubt that he shared the CU data or that any other admins took on the case and/or will speak up about it. Oh, well. We'll see what happens with this organization and others like them. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Buchenwald concentration camp#History

Check this out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.21.153 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the grammar somewhat[8] - thanks for providing a reference for this! Doc talk 08:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Periods on image captions

Hey, Doc. I see that you prefer not to have periods on image captions. Do you mind letting me know why you don't? Except for the cases where the caption is a definite sentence or paragraph and I feel that it's bad grammar not to end it with a period, I'm not sure why I prefer to have periods at the end of the statements. Flyer22 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Flyer22! I've just seen this done on a lot of articles and thought it was the "correct" thing to do, but looking at WP:CAP I'm seeing that this isn't the case - the image captions on that page even have periods at the end. Hmmm... Doc talk 21:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Doc. Thanks for the reply. Just like it seems that you hadn't, I'd never looked at the WP:CAP guideline until now. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A period is a punctuation mark which indicates the end of a sentence, and anything which is not a sentence shouldn't end with a period. The vast majority (but not all) image caption are sentence fragments, not sentences, which is why they shouldn't end with a period. I routinely remove periods from the ends of sentence fragments in captions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks, BMK! Doc talk 05:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the sentence fragment aspect had crossed my mind for why you removed the periods, Doc. From now on while on Wikipedia, and likely off Wikipedia as well, no matter my grammatically-challenged preference for this, which will very likely no longer be a preference soon enough, I'll keep in mind not to add periods at the end of sentence fragments for image captions. It's just that I suffer from obsessive–compulsive disorder and can fixate on doing things and doing things a certain way. So I suppose I am sure about this current period-preference of mine. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a slip?

Hello - Any problem on my talk, or just an errant click? Tvoz/talk 04:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely an errant click - my bad! I was going to leave a message, but I hoped my quick "revert revert" would explain it. I wish there was a way to disable Rollback on your watchlist only when you're on your mobile device: I've hit it many times by accident while trying to scroll. Cheers, Tvoz! Doc talk 04:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ha! I wondered what was going on too. No probs. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 04:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ha - no problem at all - I've done it too! Tvoz/talk 04:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, accidentally rolling back an edit on your watchlist on a mobile phone and scrambling to undo yourself is slightly less horrifying than the reaction of the people around you at a bar when you say, "Fuck!" They're like, "What happened? Who died?" If I say I'm on Wikipedia it goes downhill from there ;> Doc talk 04:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

... and you wish you'd stopped at the oath. As he mutters, "Got to get out of here". -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 04:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: Ada Lovelace, STEM women edit-a-thon at Harvard

U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!

Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields. Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either. 00:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

License

Excuse me, but I see no response to my question on the Help desk. Iowafromiowa (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't use the image without a Fair-use rationale. Even then it will get squished. Your question about longevity is right along the lines of previous question of yours . Stop trying to be cute, please: I don't believe you are actually this naïve. Doc talk 15:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You are disgusting. Really. Wish you luck. Iowafromiowa (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I would lose the attitude if I were you. You think there are 300 living children of Civil War veterans? Funny, you didn't have that figure a few days ago.[9] Stop playing games here. Doc talk 15:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW: little observation about Isidor Straus is complete and utter bullshit, and you know it very well. I'll be watching you, son... Doc talk 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyhoo, here's a more accurate link to how many Civil War children are left alive - one-third of your quote.[10] Cheers... Doc talk 16:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Don Henley edits

Are you an employee of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.40.73 (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter if I am or not. Why do you ask? Doc talk 06:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For doing this, though I could have saved my time. I was composing in the edit window and it took longer than 10 minutes. I don't care either way whether it's there or not, (and prob would have been better not to have done it) but the transparency is important in my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I don't like to see anyone's opinion removed (pro, con or neutral) when the thing has not been officially closed. It's somewhat improper, especially considering the the BN request hasn't been processed by an actual Bureaucrat. Cheers :> Doc talk 00:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I was working in the edit window for at least half an hour and didn't see that it had closed. Tried to add that to the talk page, but that thread was removed too. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It was not closed properly (and still hasn't been). Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs) closed it, which is why non-admin closures can sometimes be... best left to the admins. Doc talk 00:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

One last thing - there is indeed some serious factionalism afoot that I've been observing for some time. Since I've recently sworn off the "drahmaz" I won't get into it. You already know it anyway. Good luck in dealing with it, Truthkeeper88... Doc talk 01:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Spectorsoul.com

I don't understand why you would remove a link on the Phil Spector Wikipedia page to a website that enhances the information about Spector and the wall of sound by relating Spector and his kind of production to soul music, especially when Spector himself recorded many of the songs that the website, www.spectorsoul.com, discusses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshall615 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello! As I explained in my edit summaries and with the message on your talk page, your website falls under Links to normally avoid reason #11. The fact that you added it to the Spector article and two others indicates that this seems to be what we call external link spamming. Using Wikipedia to promote non-notable websites by non-notable individuals is not allowed. It doesn't make you an evil person or anything - many, many others have done the same thing. Cheers... Doc talk 04:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Just saw an edit to a Meatloaf article by an IP113.23.56.57 (talk · contribs) from Hanoi. I'm sure this sounds all too familiar. The edit was constructive, but the IP's only other contribution was this edit which was his typical MO of disruptive editing. I ran across one in August or September, but I didn't list it because the only edit was legit. So besides that, the last one was Aug. 18. I am interested in finding out if there was any activity I may have missed since then.

Just giving a "heads up" to ya. He's apparently still active and may have been successfully eluding us until now. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 11:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's him alright. He came back to the Meatloaf article: from 2010 on the same article I found 113.22.85.115 (talk · contribs), who made some tell-tale edits when it was used.[11] Good eye! Doc talk 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Treats

'tis the season

Thank you for history I don't share, also for not cutting my link ;) Can you perhaps explain by what reasoning Mads Lange is a sockpuppet of Davenbelle? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh - our Mads Lange is not a sock, but "Mads Lange"? You're joking now, of course. Sock accounts of banned editors do not need to be editing our pages. I could get really hard-assed and prove that you're proxying content from a banned editor by restoring the links... but I figure that you will let your conscience be your guide. Cheers... Doc talk 12:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Joking is my means of survival. You didn't answer my question how a user account created in 2012 can be a sock of one that existed until I don't know. What does proxy mean? - see also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You communicate with this user off-wiki, and he can answer all those sorts of questions for you. Doc talk 12:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So you think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you used to, at least. If you've lost touch since then, I'm sorry. By "proxy" I mean: restoring the edits of a banned editor. Banned editors are not allowed to edit here, and putting forth their edits in their place is not allowed either (especially if it's divisive crap like this). By restoring the links I removed from a sock of a banned editor, you are technically enabling a banned editor. I'm not going to make a big deal about it (or edit war over it like some would ;P), but hopefully it's a little bit clearer now. Doc talk 12:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Is "I stopped taking anything seriously - or I would have to leave also ;)" clear enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

List of A Haunting episodes

Thanks for the message, and it was my pleasure to correct the Season 5 episode summaries. It rather bothered me when not only the summaries were removed but then some one had the nerve to take out the whole season section like it didn't exist. I went back to an earlier edit to copy out the episode summaries, paste them back into the article but reworded the summaries before saving the page. I'll be more than happy to do the same for Season 4, so thanks for giving me the chance to do so. - Jabrona - 21:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, oh boy indeed. I've just finished rewording all of the Season 4 episodes and now you're informing me the other three seasons are also copy-and-pasted. Well, it looks like I have some more work to do on that article. - Jabrona - 22:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Take your time - you've done some great work! I'll work on referencing the article appropriately too. Like you, I enjoy the program and find it to be worth salvaging from the copyvio mess that it is (was?). We're halfway there - so keep at it! Cheers :> Doc talk 10:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get it right now. - Jabrona - 06:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The remaining episode summaries of the other seasons have been re-edited so now this whole copyright issue is cleared up now. It was my pleasure to help get things straightened up here. - Jabrona - 16:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your excellent efforts! Cheers, Jabrona :> Doc talk 07:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome Doc! And thank you so much for honoring me with the Barnstar Reward! I feel honored. - Jabrona - 21:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Eagles sourcing

I've set the article up so you can now cite the Felder book with {{sfn|Felder|Holden|2008|pp=XX}}. Just add any other books you want to "Sources" with a ref=harv field. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I will, and I appreciate it much! Cheers :> Doc talk 06:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

R&I

Why did you revert that edit? 61.37.16.234 (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Because you are socking. Doc talk 11:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dang - I wish it were today :( Doc talk 07:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Doc9871. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! Doc talk 07:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Ghost Story, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton, New Jersey (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) 09:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! I'll check into which township this is, since we have two. Cheers... Doc talk 09:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Happy Joy Joy

Season's Greetings, Doc9871! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD | Talk 20:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Also best wishes for your 2013 and happy editing whenever possible :-) MarnetteD | Talk 20:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD, and I wish the same for you and yours! Always a pleasure! Cheers :> Doc talk 05:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Genius4Ever

Any idea who he is a sock of? GiantSnowman 17:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not that it matters - blocked anyway, but still be nice to tag appropriately. GiantSnowman 17:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure who this is, but his "warning" includes many names, some of who might have an idea who this could be. Talk about your "dirty" starts! Cheers :> Doc talk 17:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's got to be banned user Genius(4th Power), and has now been tagged as such. Judging from the name and this account's habits, who else could it be? The first edit by this account confirms it all, as it refers to harassment of certain users. See the LTA page on this guy for more information. --92.13.91.42 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe we have a winner! Thanks for the clarification! Doc talk 18:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, Doc. That sock has now been noted at LTA. If another one of his socks shows up, just file an SPI and the clerks will do the rest. You know what to do. --92.13.91.42 (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Castlevania

Hello. I was recently checking List of Castlevania media article due to there being a problem that if you insert '!!' under the other media section the table malfunctions. I still don't know if this is a bug or what. While there I noticed you had reverted the edits of another user who had edited the 'music albums" section several times. I had edited myself some days ago by replacing the "?" with N/A and also adding some few albums that I looked up on about from Castlevania wiki. When I checked his edits I don't see any reason why it has been reverted. That's why I'm reverting your edit. However if there's a good reason that it shouldn't be reverted it is ok if it is reverted again. Sorry if any inconvenience is caused by my decision. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see one single reference for anything that was added - where did this information come from, exactly? Should we "take their word for it" that it's true? Bear in mind that It's also from a sock of an indefinitely blocked editor. Indeffed editors don't get to have their edits included by using socks, ideally. But if you want to restore unreferenced content from a less than credible "source" - I won't edit war with you over it. Cheers :> Doc talk 14:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm well I can understand that completely. But I dont think being unsourced is probably a good reason. Maybe we should wait for some time for a reference to be added if not then we can probably think about removing or reverting the content. I have been editing Wikipedia for probably 5 years now and have come across many such people who have gone so far as to directly abuse me when i reverted their edits. But still I never removed any of their edits if they were had proper references and were in good faith even though no matter how much hostile they have been. Therefore based on this experience I thonk its better to wait for a few days before re- editing the article. If there are no refs then I am in full support of removal of the content. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me! I'm not into edit warring, so there certainly will be no further revert from me. The main reason I reverted at all was for the application of (at least the spirit of) the Revert, block, ignore essay. The fact that the content was all unreferenced influenced the decision to revert as well, but was secondary, I admit. Not a clear-cut vandal in this case, but rather a blocked editor who was very clearly going out of their way to ask for trouble. I appreciate your time in this matter. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem I already have faced many vandals and even though they might have reverted my edits. I think much patience is required in these type of mattets. But that doesn't mean we should become like them and indulge in an edit war with others just because they removed our edits. If we do then there's no difference between them and us. I appreciate your patience and listening in this matter. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KahnJohn27 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be correct when it comes to reverting otherwise legitimate edits that a blocked editor makes through block evasion (though some would disagree), and some of the edits to the Castlevania article may indeed prove to be true. But in a more general sense, when it comes to obvious and unmistakable vandalism, we need to revert those sorts of edits no matter how many times they are inserted. It's one of the exemptions of the three-revert rule for good reason. After all, we can't have vandals replacing the Main Page with "POOPY!", and so we must revert "war" with them every time they do it. Happy New Year, KahnJohn27! Doc talk 07:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha "Poopy", good one and I certainly agree with what you say. Happy new year to you too, Doc9871! KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh?

"Someone needs to close this before Malleus retires again in protest." - Retires again? I wasn't aware any actual retirement by him has ever taken place. They're as common and as retractable as his blocks.--v/r - TP 20:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm all too familiar with the cycle, unfortunately. The fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" always comes to mind. The wheel warring and demands for de-sysopping are always colorful. The same sorry scenario plays out yet again. I don't think there will be a retirement, but the threats to retire could appear "dishonest" when they are in fact disingenuous. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ohh, I've got a full box of microwavable popcorn for this latest round, this will be fun!--v/r - TP 13:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers

Happy New year!

What thou art promis'd. Yet do I fear thy nature,

It is too full o' th' milk of human kindness

To catch the nearest way.

Luv ya! Happy New year! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you!

"I drink to the general joy o’ the whole table." Act III Scene 4

I know you've been... untroubled recently or I would have heard from you about it! Happy New Year to you too! ;> Doc talk 08:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Jimi

I started this article a couple weeks ago. Take a look when you get a chance, make a few edits, give me a few pointers or whatever. It's a bit of a tough subject and I've got some work to do on it yet, but it's looking okay. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good so far! It's on my watchlist. Happy New Year! Doc talk 09:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Popeye

Hello

Just FYI there is a Popeye movie being released in 2014. I think that may be what your IP is referring to, they've just not referenced it.--5 albert square (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no cast.[12] And the IP is known to hoax other edits as well. Doc talk 14:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

According to IMDB, Jim Carrey is in it?--5 albert square (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the bigger picture.[13] I am familiar with this vandal. If it is not blocked, another AOL account will insert the same crap. And I will revert it again. Doc talk 14:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And this should give a hint as to how reliable IMDB really is. The same hoaxing goes on over there, much to their chagrin. Doc talk 15:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I misunderstood the report to AIV, I thought you were saying that they were inserting incorrect information by saying there was a Popeye movie when there wasn't one--5 albert square (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem! The IP-hopper really likes to insert incorrect information: in this edit , where he claims a director "will be" directing a film. Check the date of that edit. It's just lies. For $16 a month, anyone can hoax on IMDB, by the way. Doc talk 15:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hanoi Vandal

Hello again Doc. I'm getting ready to add a few more IP's to the Hanoi Vandal list. Be careful however. Lately, it appears as though a higher percentage of his edits are legitimately constructive! I have gone through the ones made by 1.55.120.4 (talk · contribs) and made corrections. Of course there is still the apparent nonsense. For example, I haven't been able to find any evidence that Diane Warren wrote a song named "All or Nothing". Wouldn't hurt to glance over these again though if you'd like, just in case I missed (or messed) anything. I have yet to look into those edits by 58.187.45.31 (talk · contribs), nor have I checked to if these link to any other IP's from Hanoi making similar edits. Happy New Year! --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, great. THAT guy. I figured we hadn't heard the last of him. Looks like he's still doing the same things, and other editors are also reverting him.[14][15] I'll look over the IPs contributions - thanks for informing me! I will move the subpage to WP:LTA at some point in the future as I did recently with another persistent hoaxing vandal. Cheers :> Doc talk 12:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Drama

AH, the drama of an admin who (correctly) writes, "the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." and then (incorrectly) gives evidence of just two <sic> such reverts as evidence of violation of 2RR <sic>. Being the victim of the admin's poor reading comprehension/innumeracy, I don't find entertaining, but...

I'm entertained by the drama of an admin editor who shouts NO MORE DRAMA, yea, proclaims "This user is no longer interested in other people's personal Wikipedia dramas." and yet then orders popcorn while talk page stalking in order to enjoy other people's personal Wikipedia dramas, so thanks.

Thanks too for a comment that happened to lead me to watch [16] - a nice tune and pretty cool video.

AND A BIG THANKS for promptimg me to re-google verizonmath, which led me to the heartiest laugh I've had in a long time - at [17]. It may help me come back from my upcoming editing break feeling better. I need to not take it personally just because folks who can't read or do math well paint me a fool.

I agree with your point at "Dumb soapbox story...", but then also think I'm doing you a favor with this:

"In the United States alone, tobacco kills the equivalent of three jumbo jets full of people crashing every day, with no survivors, 365 days of the year." -Peter Jennings, Reporter (1938-2005) (paraphrased)--Elvey (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm definitely no admin. I consider myself sort of a "non-commissioned officer": I've been here long enough, know the rules well enough, and have been through many conflicts. I've learned a lot (and always continue to), and mellowed out somewhat, often radically changing my views on some things over my time here. Anyway, thanks for the message! Your Jennings quote rings true: I've been smoking for around 25 years and get more worried as I get older. I appreciate the favor!

Happy New Year! A little over an hour til it's here for us in EST. Cheers! Doc talk 03:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

U2. Is it rare in your experience that admins are that innumerate?--Elvey (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Untroubled?

Only because i mostly stay away from here. here is a cc of what I wrote to Seaphoto today for an FYI.

Hi ya! Asking for your help. User "Japandroids" is editing the above article intent on giving it an outdated and negative slant. As he can't edit war by himself( some wise man said that to me ;) I have stopped, hoping you can intervene. This article has been protected in the past but this probably isn't enough to do it again. I am not sure SHE isn't back because of the persistence, but I don't know, old woulds still hurt. TY in advance for whatever you can do, Regards — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm - it doesn't look like her at first glance. I'll keep watching the situation. Cheers :> Doc talk 12:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to think this a Brucejenner (talk · contribs) sock rather than SRQ after this edit. Eerily similar to this edit (though not in exactly the same spot). I'm not saying it's absolutely Bj, but it's suspicious. Doc talk 07:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

TY! You are generally awesome! Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Chemgirl131

You might be interested in this discussion, since it partly concerns you. 72.216.4.94 (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reported this at WP:ANI.[18] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes to you as well! Glad to see you're still here! Doc talk 11:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Female serial killers section of the Serial killer article

Hey, Doc. I know that you and Legitimus probably feel that I have this under control, but any input that you think will be helpful would be greatly appreciated by me in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I weighed in. Lots more needs to be done with the article since it's still C-class. We'll get there, eventually. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-Jaws

I was talking about Quint's blood, and right behind the eye of a shark is the brain. Quint drove his machete into its head all the way and went out with a fight and the sharks uncertain movements prove it could see straight and that it had brain damage because its perception was off badly and the brain wasn't processing well. STCooper1(STCooper1 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC))

I have seen the movie many times. Quint goes out with a fight, with the deck soaked with his blood. It was a bloody fight. STCooper1(STCooper1 (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC))

The machete enters what looks like would be the "cheek" of the shark - well below, and not behind, the eye. At any rate, others have already told you that what you are attempting to introduce is original research. At no point in the film is it even hinted that Quint's machete wound altered the shark's brain, or vision, in any way whatsoever. It's just not there. We can't speculate on what his machete did or did not do. Doc talk 07:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So its not that anyone doubts my personal observations and research of sharks, its just that I can't use them on here, even if I point out how the shark hinted it was. Is that it? STCooper1(STCooper1 (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC))

I don't doubt your personal observations, research, or knowledge of sharks and their behavior. But it's simply not part of the plot of the film that Quint may have injured the shark. So we can't speculate that he might have - it's not "encyclopedic" to do so. No original research is the operative policy. Doc talk 07:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Quint did hurt it. He harpoon its vitals several times, as well as its jaw, and deeply stabbed it. He did the shark harm, at least acknowledge that. (STCooper1 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC))

The discussion at the talk page seems to be gaining a consensus. Sure, he harmed the shark. But we certainly don't know if the harpoons hit any vital organs, and we don't know how deeply he stabbed the shark. I'd be happy to join you at the discussion over there, where it is most relevant. Cheers :> Doc talk 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A sharks vitals are right through where he harpooned it most of the times. I don't know how you get to the talk page and this is all I'll say that he did hurt the shark very badly. (STCooper1 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC))

If you are hitting "Edit" at the top of the page when you make your changes: look to the left at the top of the page. There is a tab that says "Talk", and this brings you to the article's talk page. At the bottom of that page is a discussion that will definitely interest you... Doc talk 00:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology for spamming

Hello. Please read this msg b4 del it in case u do decide to. Im Sid alias MegaCyanide666, ThePariahOne, Mr Sylvester Cross and many other names that I have forgotten. This time I haven't created an account for spamming but to apologise for my irrational behaviour. You of course know but still let me say this again I had no beef actually with anyone or any anger issues but was just spamming them. I'm sorry for that. Hope I'm forgiven although I don't think that's going to be. I've realised my fault. I'm truly sorry. I was out of my limits. Please forgive me. I promise I won't spam or use a sock again and I'll try not to disrespect anyone again. Thank you. SuperPariahNerd (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I forgive you. But... you're using a sock account, and not just to apologize, but to edit articles! See WP:GAB for the proper way to get unblocked. Doc talk 06:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code that was emailed to you.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Doc talk 21:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Louise Bundy

Hey -- Thanks for the heads-up on Louise -- but I notice that someone has added her birth & death dates -- with references, no less. Do you think this belongs in the article? I think it's needless detail, frankly. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 20:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you removed it - I agree it's probably an unnecessary detail, but didn't feel strongly enough to remove it. Anyway, this HighBeam stuff is interesting, and naturally there are a lot of articles on Bundy that I hadn't seen in Google searches. Did you know that it is alleged that Boone smuggled in booze in a juice drink, as well as pills, and that Bundy was under the influence during one of the trials? I found two articles from very reliable sources on this, and wonder if it isn't worth a quick sentence. This sort of thing is unthinkable today, I would think. Doc talk 23:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Boone was implicated in a lot of questionable stuff; in addition to smuggling in alcohol & drugs (allegedly), both in Colorado and in Florida, she apparently brought in most of the money that he used in his 2nd escape. I've always wondered why she wasn't charged as an accessory in the Florida homicides, since the FSU girls would never have been killed had he not escaped -- maybe a jurisdictional thing, since it occurred in Colorado. Her perpetual excuse for all the aiding & abetting was her steadfast belief in his innocence, which never made any sense -- if she really thought him innocent, why help him escape? Love is a strange thing. Adding it to the article brings up WP:BLP issues, despite the source material, since it's all hearsay. Best, DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

Hi, Doc9871. I saw that you were one of the major contributors to Ted Bundy and was wondering if you might have anything to add to Hugh_Aynesworth#1980: Ted Bundy since I'm not terribly familiar with the details of Bundy's case. I built that section mainly on one self-published primary source, so a recommendation for a reliable secondary source regarding the interviews would be most welcome. (FYI: I've cross-posted a similar request to DoctorJoeE.) Thanks! Location (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Location! Unfortunately I don't have anything by Aynesworth - the only hard copy books I have are Rule (1989) and Foreman (1992 - an excellent Time-Life volume). Because of my lack of books on the case I've used mostly newspaper sources in the Bundy article, as there are so many out there. I know that DoctorJoeE has access to Aynesworth's work on Bundy, and it was a good call contacting him as well! I'm sure he can help you with Aynesworth far better than I can. I'll put it on my watchlist, and cheers :> Doc talk 06:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the reply. Cheers! Location (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Our friend

I should leave him alone now, per WP:DNFTT - don't respond any more. He has had all the advice he needs, if he really wants to improve his article; if he just wants to complain and argue, we have better ways to spend our time. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think he's a troll, but rather a seriously incompetent editor who is very unlikely to assimilate here. I mean, after "cleaning up" the article, Addams still supposedly has a "hard of gold"; but I'm sure that will be eventually corrected once he realizes his mistake. Facepalm Doc talk 03:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ted Bundy Talk Page

Hey-- I see that you've been otherwise occupied, but you may wish to weigh in on the "diagnosis" discussion on the Bundy talk page. I'm trying to build a consensus, one way or the other (i.e. I'm not canvassing) -- to settle this relatively minor question; and the troll who started the whole pissing contest has fallen strangely silent. If you want to stay clear, of course, I certainly understand. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 19:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, DoctorJoeE! I've been watching things (of course), and the only reason I haven't said anything is because I'm not entirely up to speed with the difference between/evolution of those diagnostic terms. I did think your point about the terms "moron", etc. being formerly accepted medical terms to be absolutely spot-on. I'll try to read through all of it later when I get back, but you seem to be on the right track to gain consensus. Cheers :> Doc talk 00:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed this edit by the way. I think maybe instead of referring to Hinckley as a "fellow" inmate (which could imply to some that they were fellow inmates in the same facility) that it should be "..another infamous criminal, John Hinckley Jr.", or something like that. Hinckley also was never a state prison inmate like Bundy, but rather an inmate in a psychiatric hospital for the "criminally insane". Not sure if that term is still used ;P Just my opinion... Doc talk 00:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point -- I'll change it. And in reviewing the latest Rule edition, she notes that Bundy beat that particular rap -- because the rule he supposedly violated was "unauthorized correspondence with a fellow prisoner" -- and Hinckley wasn't technically a "prisoner", so he got the charge dismissed. And no, "criminally insane" is no longer used because technically (in the US) there is no such thing -- you are either a criminal (guilty) or insane (innocent). That is, once you are determined to be mentally ill you are, by definition, "innocent by reason of insanity". There is no present provision in US law for being found guilty AND insane -- although there is a movement afoot to create that 3rd category, and there should be one, IMHO -- for people like Hinckley, who is now out of the hospital at least a third of the time, and has a driver's license. If I were Jody Foster I'd be packin' a Beretta. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 01:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

One more thing -- in looking the Hinckley thing up I was reminded of a bit of trivia -- Bundy had some sort of foot fetish; he had dozens of pairs of socks that he sniffed and did God knows what else with. I've always thought it wasn't really relevant enough to be in the article, but most of the authors do mention it. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 01:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes the foot fetish would be a good thing to mention, and I believe they identify (or used to at least) that as a "paraphilia". I'll have to look into in further when I get home in a few hours (on my iPhone now), but it would definitely be something that I think should be included. Doc talk 01:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, here's what Michaud/Ayneworth had to say: "This passion for socks -- all told, Ted charged more than 30 pairs [this is in Florida] -- is symptomatic of the foot fetish that Bundy willingly conceded; Ted thought it funny, an amusing little quirk. Psychiatrists, on the other hand, recognize such paraphilias as common among people suffering from severe sexual disorientation." So perhaps you're right, it may be appropriate somewhere in the "pathology" section. But let me get this "psychopath" troll (who sounds a bit sociopathic himself) out of our hair first. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 02:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to weigh-in here on the "foot fetish" and if it s/b included. I had never heard this about Bundy before. Since he is a serial killer, that info. is relevant to other serial killers, may even need a category, "serial killers w/suspected or known foot-fetish" to link them all together? One other would be the Atlantic City serial killer who left bodies shoeless and the foot aspect was mentioned there.24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Brudos was one of the more infamous serial killers with a foot fetish, nicknamed the "Shoe Fetish Slayer". I'm not really that into categories myself, but it's a free wiki! Doc talk 19:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

All serial killers, almost by definition, have numerous mental instabilities; attempting to link them by their common paraphilias is a bit of a stretch, IMHO -- and WP:OR besides, unless at least one reliable source has made that connection, which I have not (yet) seen. However, I'm currently looking into the existence (if any) of academic literature related to Bundy and his paraphilias. He had others as well -- sadism, necrophilia, another partialism (heads), and possibly a third, trichophilia (hair) -- maybe more. The more you look, the more you find... DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 19:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention his voyeurism: he himself told detectives he was a "peeping Tom".(Rule, 2008 p.285) In Foreman p.11 it mentions his young career as a Tom, and further states that he even went so far as to disable women's cars "by the time he finished high school". Doc talk 19:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed -- he told Michaud that too, albeit in 3rd person. One could also make a case for asphyxiophilia (he liked strangling his victims as he assaulted them) -- and somnophilia, since most early & late victims were attacked while asleep -- maybe even pedophilia, since some of his victims were very young. The list goes on and on... DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 20:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Dang - never heard of those others before, but Bundy seems to have had them as well. As for pedophilia, both Culver and Leach were only 12 years old. Children. How many paraphilias are we at now? One of the very worst criminals imaginable, IMHO. Doc talk 09:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I doubt that there is much dispute about that. I count 8 categories at this point. There's little doubt that he was a pedophile -- in addition to Culver & Leach (and probably the 8-year-old in Tacoma), you'll recall that he told Keppel that there were other murders that he would never talk about because the victims were very young. But I've not yet come across any RS discussing Ted and pedophilia, so for the moment it remains OR as far as the article is concerned.

As an aside, here's a minor frustration: I'm doing my jury duty obligation today, and was hoping to work on the article -- but the Courthouse wi-fi won't let me access it, or any sources related to Bundy -- they filter all web content related to "violence!" Incredible. I guess porn sites would be out of the question too -- not that I would have any interest in that... :-) DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

oh yes it was

It was a threat and had overtones of intimidation and it had no place on the thread. Now I am going to revert. WP is not censored is no excuse for threats. Irondome (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly discourage you from doing that. Doc talk 08:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I take that as a threat too Irondome (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Take it as a "word to the wise". This isn't my first day here, and I know how things tend to work. Be my guest. Go ahead and revert it. It's not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination. And others will tell you the same thing. Doc talk 08:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I would expect an apology from the editor concerned on my talk page. Im mild, and I readily apologise, my record would show that. But im not having the piss taken. This is in no way a comment on you mate. Seriously. Peace. Irondome (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We all get angry here, and there's no way around it. Perfectly understandable! But refactoring an editor's entire post by citing the refactoring of a personal attack that isn't even there is not going to fly in any case. Don't you think another editor, perhaps an admin even, would have already reverted me if I was incorrect? It's the freaking AN/I! Let this situation calm down, and come back to it later. Cheers :> Doc talk

Im hearing you. First time ive lost it in 10 months. Irondome (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You didn't lose it at all. All is well! Doc talk 08:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Respect. Regards Irondome (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I lived in Ramsgate for 12 years by the way. So it is quite obvious that I have suffered in my life. :) Irondome (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I took the hovercraft from Ramsgate to Oostende in 1996 (before they stopped doing it, which is a great shame, as it was a great experience crossing the Channel that way). I didn't get to see the town except for the station, but I certainly know how small-town life can be! I really loved England (warts and all, especially the exchange rate) and hope to see it again some day. Cheers, Irondome! Let me know if you need any help in the future. Doc talk 09:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I was there from 74 to 86. We used to go and watch the hovercraft starting up the huge growling turboprops. Sounded like I would have imagined a B17 bombardment group would have before a mission. It was one of the few entertainments available. There was a big airbase called Manston. USAF F111s used to regularly use it, with F4s, the big KC refuelling jets; many types of plane and chopper. It was the height of the cold war, and my kitchen window was about 1500 yards from the main runway. As the red peril had about 2 megatons targetting it (it was actually the longest runway in the UK and was the major terminus for the Atlantic airbridge NATO had planned for resupply) WW3 would have been a barrel of laughs for my family, for about a nanosecond. I appreciarte your offer of any help bro, and I will prob look you up. Good luck! Irondome (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Factocop

As he does not wish me to contribute on his talkpage any longer, I would wish to point out one thing, which you may put to him. FC claims the IP edited 4 months before he had an account, june 2010, but in fact it was June 2011 when the IP reverted HighKing, a time whn Factocop was active and edit warring. If you would like to put this correction to him is entirely up to you. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the IP's that much yet - but you can always point these things out on his talk page. Per WP:BLANKING, he can remove your posts (and you shouldn't reinsert them if he does to avoid 3RR problems); but you are under no restriction to post there just because he "kicked you off". The page belongs to the WMF, not him or any other individual editor. Unless you are out of line with policy in your posts, it is not unacceptable to disregard a "talk page banishment". Cheers :> Doc talk 11:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

On the Border (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Best Of My Love and Already Gone

Desperado (Eagles album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tequila Sunrise

One of These Nights (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Take it to the Limit

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Respected Doc Sir.

So according to you,i am not competent or to say that i do not have the skill,capability,efficiency,understanding process to edit pages on wikipedia.And the source which i got about Battleship (film) was from a world's leading magazine or the world's best magazine Forbes,written by people who are assigned to write on Forbes.

Realising that i am really really sorry,and my mistakes were not intentional,the kind-hearted administrator of wikipedia and a good human being King of Hearts unblocked me,realising that i am capable of editing,and i have contributed a lot,and because he knew what i meant,and i started off like that with a source,if that is not eligible,and if i need to be babysitted by someone,then i am asking Lord Buddha and i am praying to him,that how do i prove that i am a good editor.If that article from a leading worldwide magazine,which has been critically acclaimed by the world is not right according to you,then please tell me Doc Sir,what do you approve?.

The Administrator of wikipedia who unblocked me,the Kind-Hearted Good-Natured human being King of Hearts,too after reading about the edit i have done,would have accepted it and would have approved about that article and would never say that i am competent and i am immature to edit things.That is the main reason he unblocked me within 20 hours,seeing that i have potential to edit,and he/she felt sorry for me.

With Faithfulness

Adarsh Aich Sarkar

Replied on your talk page. Good luck to you. Doc talk 22:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello (cont'd)

Respected Doc Sir

Thanks for the suggestion,i really respect it,somebody like you and Master of Puppets Administrator had to use force to teach me a lesson,because after user Ryulong,RA0808,Madman Bot spoke to me nicely,i used force to teach me,rather than that Lord Buddha made you fellow users to teach me a lesson.

I know that because of what i am,i never really deserved a second chance,i will start editing after learning what is what,until that i will just do small edits,and revert back to the position of a clerk/peon rather than taking up the position of boss,directly without experience.

Please forgive me,if i have ever offended you,

Best of luck with your future life.

Fellow Editor Adarsh Aich Sarkar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adarsh the Creator (talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No need for you to apologize to me: you did not offend me at all. You are quite correct that I can be rude at times. Nothing personal at all. None of us came into this thing called Wikipedia knowing every little rule and procedure. We all learn through our mistakes. Take the advice of fellow editors to heart and you'll be fine. Cheers... Doc talk 03:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14

Hi Doc9871! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 17:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm?

[19]. --Jayron32 16:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I had not seen that - thanks. I just looked at something published on April 10, and the Eagles have not confirmed anything. It's just Joe Walsh saying this as far as I can see right now. As to counting Leadon as a current member, this is sure to get interesting. To quote another article on the unconfirmed reunion: "If true, it seems likely Leadon's role in the shows will be similar to that of Mick Taylor, who joined The Rolling Stones during last year's live dates to perform "Midnight Rambler", and will play with them again this year as a a special guest." Cheers... Doc talk 21:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Rosemary Kennedy vandalism

Thank you for reverting the vandalism. I warned the anonymous editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! I detest vandalism and revert it whenever I see it. Cheers :) Doc talk 05:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Trolls

Don't feed them. [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I know. But I like them to try and feed on me. They usually don't like how I taste. Doc talk 13:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello BL. I wanted to stop by and say thank you for your post at ANI in the thread that I was involved in. I appreciate the time that you took to look into things and to post there. I am getting a feeling that, somewhere out there on the web, there is a playbook telling people

1. Go to Wikipedia and edit
2. Do not take the tutorial
3. Do not read any of the policies regarding editing - especially if another editor has given you a link to one or more of them.
4. If anyone reverts your edit don't go to the talk page for the article. Instead go directly to ANI and claim that you are being bullied.

Oof sorry for venting here but I thought you might have noticed this as well. Cheers and have a good week. MarnetteD | Talk 18:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Obviously it was a "crank case". Speaking of "cases", our little pal the VCV is still active, much to my chagrin. I really do not like his brand of persistent vandalism. Now it's me who's venting! :) Cheers! Doc talk 10:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I had noticed that VCV was active again. Broadway hoaxer and Pé de Chinelo have also edited within the last couple weeks. Ooof it never ends. MarnetteD | Talk 12:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

They're coming out of the woodwork! Must be spring - the creepy-crawlies come to life. Even Sven70 (talk · contribs) made a rare appearance on my radar today, accusing us all here at WP of "hating the disabled" again. Thankfully the excellent Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) saw through their stale line of trolling for the block. What's next? Cheers ;) Doc talk 13:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Retirement from ANI discussion

I firstly have the stupid allegations from a world champion WP:BLP breacher, and now I have User:Drmies and User:Saedon making derogatory, unexplained, and completely irrelevant allegations about my past. That already gives me three fights to fight, when I, and obviously several others involved and better informed about the dispute see me as completely innocent. If this proceeds like any other ANI process, others who dislike me will pour on the crap. Why should I even try to fight each fight? HiLo48 (talk)

Because you are a fighter. By inserting yourself in current "hot button" issues you are going to take flak. I've told you this before. You can either roll with the punches in the articles you are dealing with, or... I don't know what to tell you. You're a good editor with strong opinions. Retiring is overrated. Cheers... Doc talk 04:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, don't you see? I've withdrawn from the discussion. So who's fighting? HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The reporter of the thread appears to be experiencing the boomerang effect. Opening an AN/I thread is fun, no? You don't see me opening many of them. If they're there, and I want to comment, I may. Good luck. Doc talk 05:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange events

What's going on here? Bishonen | talk 02:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC).

I made a mistake. We both get on "high alert" when these pages get edited, obviously. All is well. Carry on. Cheers :) Doc talk 03:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. The edits to the page you're referring to were certainly strange, but I think the user is merely a confused newbie. Carry on. :-) Bishonen | talk 12:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC).

:) Doc talk 08:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverting of edit on Racerx11's talkpage

How come that you reverted my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokrollo (talk • contribs) 08:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This one? Incorrect usage of categories. Doc talk 08:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably because you placed a "red" catagory template that had no business on a user talk page anyway. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 08:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That too. ;) Doc talk 08:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hendrix troll

The troll reposted material that was archived after 30 days (2 hours after it was archived). Not sure why you've decided to police me now, but enjoy feeding and defending the vandals! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of "policing" you, and I certainly never defend a vandal. Re-archiving anything he pulled out is better than leaving the thing set to archive every future discussion after just a day. Of course, if you were going to change it back and I beat you to it, I do apologize. Cheers :) Doc talk 21:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That's exactly what I intended to do. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

External Webpages with Non-Licensed Copyrighted Images...

Hi Doc9871, just a quick question. I noticed that on the Gram Parsons article you removed an external link to Find-A-Grave as it hosts a non-licensed copyrighted image, is it Wikipedia’s policy not to link to external webpages with non-licensed copyrighted images? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk)

According to WP:ELNEVER we should not. "Find-A-Grave" is no stranger to hosting copyrighted images that are submitted by editors who simply have no right to freely license those images. Their lack of editorial oversight should be greatly scrutinized. Cheers :) Doc talk 08:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc9871. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! There's also WP:FINDAGRAVE to peruse. In the rare case where an entry on that site does not have COPYVIOS some people may use them. In my opinion, it's a terrible site with little to no editorial oversight (not a reliable source), and I have yet to see a Featured or Good article that uses it. Happy Editing! Doc talk 21:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yogurt

Why revert yogurt history when i referenced it?--Ericg33 (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No original research. Your reference did not cover your inclusion. And see WP:WEASEL. The additions you attempted to make will be reverted again, so please read up on what I've pointed out. Doc talk 09:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Re Ramirez mug shot

template:PD-CAGov is for works produced by the state of California not individual municipalities. Los Angeles Police Department is not part of state government rather city government. Can't move the 1984 Ramirez mugshot to the Commons. However, Los Angeles Sheriff-produced mugshot are public domain per this message that's often cited as a public domain reason. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

... "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" or officer. If this image is not includable to the Commons under that language, the template language needs to be changed. Cheers :) Doc talk 04:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We may have another one

Hello D. Thanks for your note. I think we may have another one. This 98.15.141.31 (talk · contribs) geolocates a couple states away from NY but they sure are making a batch of Bo-o-o-o-gus (to quote Tom and Ray) entries. Thought I would let you decide. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing him geolocate to Monticello, New York, which is precisely where he is based. Yup, this IP is 100% him. What a pain in the ass... Doc talk 18:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I read Monticello and thought of TJ and didn't look at the rest of the map. Very WP:POV and sloppy of me to not remember that there is more than one. If I do one of these Facepalm maybe the trout will hit my hand and not my nose. HeeHee. Thanks for the confirmation. Have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 20:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't feel bad: several of his more recent Verizon IPs have been geolocating outside of New York (e.g. 174.226.70.109 (talk · contribs)). He's been quite active lately, as you know, and edits like this are just so nauseatingly ridiculous. I don't care if he's some wiseacre kid or a very delusional person; I will hunt this little puke tirelessly. He's a nightmare. You have a great week, too! Cheers! Doc talk 22:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow whatta jerk he is. Ya know if VCV's edits were allowed to stand I think Jam Varney would have done much more voice work after his death than before. As ever, many thanks for your vigilance. MarnetteD | Talk 22:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

He's just a horrible twerp. Let Jim Varney rest in peace, little bastard! Thanks to you as always for cleaning up his mess! Until next time: and you know there will be a "next time". Cheers :) Doc talk 22:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

... And he just went at it with another round from the same IP?! Does he not realize we're watching him? Unreal... Doc talk 23:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that Ponyo had blocked him. It was odd that he used the same IP for a couple days. It'll be even odder if he uses it again after a block - but that would make our task easier - as if. Heh. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

His frenzied attempts must be pondered carefully before he inserts them. I am as surprised as you are that he used this IP again after 2 days. I wonder what color the sky is in his world. Cheers! Doc talk 01:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

LTA

24.39.109.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Voice cast vandel? not in the suggested ip ranges.Martin451 (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's him. Geolocates to Rhinebeck, New York and performs the same idiotic edits. Good catch! Doc talk 19:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comments on User talk:Eric Corbett

Hello. While Eric's comments were definitely against policy, I certainly don't think that your comments on his talk page helped the situation - rather, they fueled the fire and made things worse. Next time, I'd suggest that you keep this in mind. Hope this helps. --Rschen7754 09:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I really have no interest in seeing the guy blocked, and I most certainly had nothing to do with that block. I've discussed things with him in the past, and he's a big boy. I stepped in an attempt to get him off the ledge: I was being diplomatic. The block came later. Doc talk 09:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the way I read them, it comes off as flippant/sarcastic at best, and baiting at worst, and considering that he proceeded to attack you as well, I don't think he took it too well. --Rschen7754 09:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I stepped in after he called editors "assholes" and "idiots". He then called me both names. Big deal. I didn't run off and request his block for NPA violations. I have no reason to bait him: I don't even endorse the length of this block. This cannot be laid at my feet when all I did was try to advise him not to act like such a jerk. Doc talk 09:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

While you may have had good intentions, the effects may not have been how you envisioned them, that's all I am saying. --Rschen7754 09:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I most certainly did not expect him to get blocked. A mini-shitstorm is forming as we speak. It is what it is. Cheers... Doc talk 09:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is what it is in part because you chose to go to his talk page and taunt him. If that's the way "you always talk to him", then I suppose you've always been nothing but a disruptor. Really, I'm disgusted. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• So you want me blocked for "baiting". What damage do you suppose that would prevent? I'll say this one last time: I had no intention of getting Eric blocked. You can blame me as a scapegoat all you want.Your assessment that I am "nothing but a disruptor" is off the mark by a long way. And the atmosphere of plotting misguided revenge and trashing other editors over there is kind of disgusting to me. Doc talk 23:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Doc9871. Eric already sees the pattern in his behaviour. When you showed up on his talk page and make observations on that pattern of behaviour without offering any solutions, you only added fuel to the fire. What was your purpose in going there? you say it was an attempt to get him off the ledge and that you were trying to offer advice, but the way you worded your posts does not demonstrate those motives at all. The way I see it, the posts imply that you expect no change whatsoever in his behaviour and that you want to rub his nose in it, so sorry. I don't see how you can view these posts as anything but sarcastic, demeaning, and rude:
• First post: To perpetuate the cycle of the diva? Causes more drama than it's worth. Looks like you win! You officially have free rein to be as rude as you want. Congrats!
• Second post: I wish! You are an inspiration to assholes everywhere, though.
• Fourth post: "Round Two"? As if! You'd likely run off and retire again. We simply can't have that. Glad to see you're maintaining your stranglehold of power. Yeah, we're done for now. Pointing out other people's faults in such a rude sarcastic way is highly unlikely to lead them to having an epiphany and changing their ways. Quite the opposite in fact – . I hope you will take some time to reflect on how your behaviour did indeed escalate the situation.-- Diannaa (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps I let my emotions get the better of me when posting there. His treatment of that editor was simply atrocious, and I stepped in after he gloatingly inquired why he hadn't been blocked. That's him rubbing everyone's nose in it. I brought up this mess to a RL friend and he said, "Are you allowed to talk to editors like that on Wikipedia?" Apparently, we are. However, I don't think any of us should treat others as idiotic, assholeish "children". If y'all believe I went there thinking, "I'm going to piss him off so he'll call me names and get blocked", that was not my intention. I simply could no longer tolerate what I was seeing and so I said something about it. Doc talk 01:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Been stalking the relevant pages, because that's the kind of guy I am. Let it drop now. All relevant points have been made, and members can draw their own conclusions as to motivations, goodies and "baddies". Just a feeling. Irondome (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Found this on your User page:

  Retired (from the Drama) • This user is no longer interested in most other people's personal Wikipedia dramas.

  But you left what was without a doubt an intentionally sarcastic insult on Eric's Talk, explaining it like this:

  His treatment of that editor was simply atrocious [...] I simply could no longer tolerate what I was seeing and so I said something about it.

  (Do you really think that's personally consistent!? [I don't.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I said "most" people's. And if you interpreted it to mean that I'll keep silent (like so many do) when I see someone needlessly ripping someone to pieces for asking about a revert of the word "the"... that's not what I mean with the banner. Cheers Doc talk 06:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Any objection to Doc9871 being blocked for a few days ?" Nick (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Seeing as he has no clue regarding what he has done, I wouldn't oppose it (note his talk page)." --Rschen7754 20:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is absolutely considering a purely "punitive" block. Blocking me will prevent no damage whatsoever, and the suggestion that it would be justified in any way is without merit. Doc talk 02:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Doc9871. The trouble is, Eric does not give a shit what your opinion of him is. It would have been better for you to not have posted there at all. The link I already provided shows he already knows that his own behaviour is suboptimal but I am sure he has no idea how to make a change or even if a change is possible. Please leave him alone in the future, as a favour to me. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's not like I've made a habit of posting on his page. This actually reminds me of a deal we made on another editor. We know how that eventually turned out. If any editor is going to blatantly thumb his/her nose at "teh rulez" because they have a huge fan base and think they can get away with it forever, it serves none of us to encourage their otherwise intolerable abuse, no matter how valuable they are deemed to be. I can tolerate his rudeness, as I laugh it off. But watching him smirk over his special little pass to treat others like utter garbage is nauseating. The way I've been portrayed, as if everything I've ever done here means shit and I'm just a "disruptor" is disheartening: especially from those whom I have lost a ton of respect for over this. I haven't posted there since my last post, and I don't plan on it. It seems pretty clear I'd be blocked for "harassment" if I were to ever post there again. Doc talk 06:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed, my attempt to help Jack was an epic fail, and it's unlikely people like me and you can help Eric either. Thanks for agreeing to stay away. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Eric and Doc can say whatever they want to each other on their talk pages. Would those trying to control that please stop. If either doesn't like it, they can stay away from the other's talk page and ban the other from theirs. It is incredibly intrusive, meddling, patronising, insulting and presumptuous of anyone to chastise, block or threaten to block for that kind of exchange. Civil discourse matters on project and article talk pages, not so much on user talk. If someone wants to be an arse hole in user space, let the community deal with it by simply ostracising them. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Lost in the sock drawer

I was about to scold you for this: [21] But then I found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Veryverser/Archive and some of the editor's other efforts. Sorry for doubting you and keep up the good work. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really need anymore scolding at the moment. Cheers :) Doc talk 21:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"Doc", this is "Veryverser". For the life of me, I don't understand the emotional, "intellectual", nor mental dispositon of "Wiki" so-called editors. As in this case of "Sinebot" and other malicious souls who deem what is "gossip" and what constitutes a legitimate contribution in the "talk" section eludes me. (But it is no mystery why "Wiki" is losing support of the world community). In the matter of the "Superman" title pages which , I surmise you're the writer\editor, understand what I attempt is a healthy debate on (particularly) this topic. I would think my ideas are original and can be a help to the engaging community who come to this web site, no less than anyone else who have a sincere concern to uplift to conversation. I understand infantile hostility and jealousies of individual who do not have an original idea in their heads. This is tiring, so I do humbly entreat you stop harassing me. And stop the false accusations of "vandalizing". I mean, really.... Also I am not an "editor" as you have implied. This is very confusing. Were I so, then it should stand that you would have no overriding authority to take actions against me. --64.134.102.60 (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Veryverser

You are the indefinitely blocked Veryverser (talk · contribs). You have never successfully (or seriously) appealed your block, you have socked using dozens of IP's for over three years, and the behavior that got you indefinitely blocked remains utterly unchanged. I will revert every long-winded, NOTFORUM rant of yours I come across, but leave this one for posterity. Cheers. Doc talk 05:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

Hello Doc9871, I would just like your opinion on a couple of edits on the Ted Bundy article, made by Inhighspeed. This unregistered editor added a category "People executed for murder" to this article which I reverted, as there seemed to be far too many categories - which already covered the article. However, they have again reverted and I don't want to get into a edit-war situation. What are your views? I have also contacted DoctorJoeE to ask his opinion. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner! I have never cared too much one way or the other about categories, though over-categorization can certainly be annoying and redundant (think "White males executed for murder in Florida" or some other such thing). It's not worth an edit war, that's for sure. CFD for ludicrous categories, of course. Cheers :) Doc talk 02:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, I think this user just wanted something to do!! Look forward to working with you again. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Me

"Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then 'tis time to do't." Spot in my breast is malignant. Researching Chemo. Wanted you to know. Surgery was successful and now the battle with HMO starts. Misssing you!! Share with Crohnie please. Gentle hugs.. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry about, dear. You are definitely in my thoughts and prayers. Get well soon! I've missed you! Doc talk 20:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

tyty! x0x0x0x0 — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Animal tales.

Could I point your eyes here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Devanday01 please.Martin451 (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me that. Very ducky case here. Our boy the VCV is sadly not the only vandal who likes to hoax: I've uncovered so many like-minded vandals with a similar mindset while reverting his trash. This Devanday guy needs a swift kick in the ass to end his hoax. Thanks for you help on the hoaxers! Cheers :) Doc talk 10:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

LTA

I'm not overly familiar with their handiwork, but is this IP perchance this returning LTA?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 24.161.26.167 (talk · contribs) is certainly the same LTA little... person. Sigh. Monticello is basically their playground. Thanks for pointing this IP to me! Cheers :) Doc talk 07:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked the IP as a precaution (though they are likely on to another one by now). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a different IP is certain. This puke's been at it for years and lives in his own little world, and he shows no signs of ending his extremely irritating behavior. Thanks for helping corral the bugger! I will always dog him until he stops with the garbage and goes away. Cheers :) Doc talk 07:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hanoi Vandal

He was stuck in Korea for several weeks with a blocked IP, but now he's in Hanoi again with two IPs and back with more crap. He's still putting in his usual garbage, but has also taken up the craft of genre warrioring. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 14:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping on top of him! I don't know who's more irritating: the Voice Cast Vandal or this guy. Incorrigible, both of them. Cheers, Racerx11! Doc talk 22:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like VCV is certainly of the same breed and no less a handful. VCV's LTA page is now on my watchlist. If things get too crazy with that joker, let me know if I can be of any help. As for HV, I can't put my finger on it, but I'm sure he is altering his behavior as a result of his being aware of being watched. Not necessarily in positive way, but apparently in an effort to avoid blocks. Right now I am letting a few of his latest edits stand just to see what he does next. Another thing I have clearly observed which I suspected for a long time; he has on occasion corrected misinformation that he himself has introduced months ago from different IP addresses. Interesting, eh? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there is hope for the HV after all, and I would be pleasantly surprised if he truly "reformed" himself. The VCV is a hopeless case for being reformed, and having another editor to fight his antics is most appreciated. Thanks! Doc talk 23:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to interpret his "corrections" as an attempt to trick myself and others into reverting and unwittingly reintroduce the false data back in. But who knows what's going on in his noggin? My gut tells me HV will sooner one day just quit, rather than reform. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right - wishful thinking on my part, mostly. I'd actually sort of miss hunting the both of them in a strange way. They are so persistent that it's sort of become a routine in my time here. Good riddance to the both of these clowns. Doc talk 00:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Last post and I will let you go for now. You are no alone with that admission of enjoying—in some strange way—going after menaces like these two. There is the theory that the reason the community at WP hasn't gone to a system that would virtually eliminate vandalism is because we just love to revert them so darn much. A "love-hate" relationship if you will, which is also touched on in the essay WP:Genre Warrior.

I will leave you with one more thing to chew on about HV. Is it possible that he is not a vandal after all, but maybe just a really bad editor. Hear me out. Could it even be possible that:

• a) He doesn't speak English. His edits are very abbreviated without altering any text in sentence form. One would not need to know English to add songs titles, artists credits, track lengths, categories etc. This would also explain his unwillingness to communicate in any way.
• b) He is a fan of popular music but his knowledge is limited, far more than he would ever be aware. Because of his inability to speak or read English, he has failed to understand what the sources say and is confused about which version or release of the song the sources are talking about. Many of his edits focus on "best of" type material which often contain alternate remixes of tracks and this has hopeless confused him. He possibly is being mislead by poor webpage translators. Or maybe he's getting all his information from the file info data attached to downloaded mp3s?
• c) He is intelligent enough to have learned the syntax and proper style that is required on WP (capitalization fixes within titles are a favorite constructive contribution of his), but again because of the language barrier has failed to grasp basic rules of editing here such as sourcing and WP:BRD.
• e) His IP configuration is dynamic in Hanoi (gets a different one every session at his computer) and static in Korea (He never used more than one IP during each stay in Korea)
• e) He's just a really, REALLY baaaaddd editor, who thinks he knows far more than he does and actually hasn't a clue what he's doing most of the time.

What do you think of all that? Very unlikely? Or not possible in the least? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Scrap that entire theory [22] and he is aware. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 13:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see you've spoken to Materialscientist about him - good call. Thinking back on that Alvin and the Chipmunks spree in particular, there's no way this guy's primary interest is anything other than adding garbage. We know he'll be back, but hopefully the block will have an effect: a break, as you put it. ;) Doc talk 23:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree regarding the HV's intent. Forgot about the Alvin spree. MS seemed like a good one to go with. Very active, very knowledgeable and capable admin, and sits on the low tolerance side when dealing with vandals. I'm trying not to expect too much from him though. It may be unrealistic to expect any admin to invest the time and effort required to fully combat such a vandal. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 05:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, MS has dealt with him in the past, but is a busy man. We can deal with him, and others will hopefully catch on to who it is like they did with the VCV.

On another note: hope you don't mind that I put your diff here.[23] Good call again! I don't know why anyone tries to do that, as it looks so ridiculous. Cheers! Doc talk 02:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Do not mind in the least. We're getting into a different topic now but note the somewhat clumsy edit summary of mine as I quickly tried to find the words to briefly explain my revert. I would have much rather just linked to an Eagles specific style guide as I have suggested at Talk:Eagles (band)#An "Eagles" guideline?. Same thing here. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 03:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I usually just put WP:LAME in the edit summary, as it really, really is. Draft something in a subpage and we can do something with it. Doc talk 05:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Will likely have something by Monday. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 11:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

!LTNS!

Hey Doc! Loved seeing your post on my talk page. Seems we haven't crossed paths in a long time. Stop by for any reason, anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuhg! You, of all people, being a "biter"... it's a wee bit of a stretch, to say the least! That editor hopefully knows you better now. Hope all is well, and keep the faith! Doc talk 04:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

IP-hopping by VCV

Just found an IP range that the Voice Cast Vandal had been using after one of the IPs touched the Varney article. Monty blocked the range, but I notice this type of activity is not noted on the LTA page. Since you do must of the updating on it I though might want to know.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, TDA! There's a very good possibility that this vandal is not the VCV, but rather some other jokester. We know the VCV is based in New York, with some IPs geolocating elsewhere, but still within a a state or two away (or one of those Verizon IPs that geolocates to no specific place in the middle of the country). This guy is in Tampa, Florida, and he hopped IPs quicker than I've seen the vandal ever do. The VCV almost always makes multiple edits with the same IP before abandoning it - never using rapid-fire "one-offs" attacking the same article within minutes. I've seen a lot of vandals with similar activities that could at first glance seem like the VCV (I can think of a dinosaur lover that plagues Frank Welker every so often, and there's one in California that does the same type of thing), but I am not sure this is actually him. Maybe he's on vacation or has moved, but I haven't seen evidence of that yet. Thanks for letting me know! I'll have more time to look at it in further detail later. Doc talk 02:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, persistent socks or vandals tend to test out ways to evade detection. Given the nature of the IP-hopping, I am skeptical of the person using those IPs actually being someone who resides in Tampa, Florida. The editor is most likely using a type of proxy service with a server in Tampa that allows for rapid changing of IPs. It was hitting a lot of previous targets of VCV so the only other possibility is that it was a very good copy-cat.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This vandal, who was appropriately rangeblocked, just doesn't set off my "spidey sense" as being the VCV, even before I scrutinized the edits. I've studied the wretched VCV for years, more than any other editor. The recent Varney IPs were certainly all from one user; but I do not think it's the VCV. [24] is also not the VCV.[25] I really can tell when it's him, and when it's not with a high degree of accuracy.(him) Per WP:BEANS, I've probably already said too much here. ;> Doc talk 08:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I figure the one adding plot details isn't VCV, and I did not revert that IP, but one from the blocked range. Should you be right that it isn't the VCV then it is impersonation or a very unlikely coincidence since I have counted at least six separate unrelated articles with previous VCV edits that were also targeted by this range.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Meh, sorry - wrong diff above. The IP that added it was part of this very narrow range, and I believe all those IPs are the same user. There is some very eerily similar behavior, for sure, not just in the target choices (I won't mention them here). But there is one edit that would be a landmark first for the VCV: one . Assuming that one person used all those IPs, including this one, it would be the first time in over 3 years that the VCV has ever spoken to anyone in any capacity. Now, I certainly can't rule out that he's on vacation/has moved and is altering his behavior, or is using a proxy server; and you and Monty are both very right to strongly suspect this person of being the VCV. I have my suspicions as well. Confirming that it is him 100% is something I can't do at this time, but I certainly will continue to look at it intently. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Update - Now, this one. This one I can confirm as him 100%. Wretched thing... Doc talk 21:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Ramirez

I would like to thank you for your vast contributions to the Richard Ramirez article. I remember reading through that article before and noting its poor quality by encyclopedic standards. I would, however, like to suggest that the 1984 mug shot of Ramirez be swapped with the image in the infobox because it is by far the most recognizable image of the subject, the subject is now deceased, and the images would also then be in chronological order. What do you think?Hoops gza (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Hoops gza! Thanks for noticing - I've really only scratched the surface, as there is so much to this case. You're quite right that the article was in a very bad state before. At least now we have the correct names and order of the victims and a little more on his early life. I will continue to chip away at it.

As for swapping images: I'm not sure. We've already had a recent challenge to the mug shot's existence since we already have an undeniably free image of him, and I fear that stirring the pot will cause further problems. I still have to get the mugshot on the Commons: but even then I'm not convinced that having the more recognizable image is always the best thing. I tend to be of the other persuasion in most cases, with the most recent free image being the one for the infobox. But that's just my personal preference. Bring it up on the talk page so that other editors can weigh in, as consensus will determine what should be done. Cheers :) Doc talk 02:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Cancer Update

Surgery went well but as

ANTIPHOLUS of Syracuse says: "Why is Time (CHEMO) such a niggard of hair, being, as it is, so plentiful an excrement? (Chemo is shitty!)

Baldly Lovin' ya — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Miss you! Please be well! Doc talk 02:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: Steve Perry (musician)

If the material is poorly sourced, which seems to be, you can remove it per BLP ("must be removed immediately without waiting discussion"). The page is now SP, so, for a week there will be no problem, if the problem persists, try WP:BLPN. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - this user has called removal of the badly sourced (likely circular) material "vandalism", which is always a red flag for me. One would think with the plethora of reliable sources out there, and this artist's notability, that something would be out there on this that isn't a blog or WP mirror. If there were it would remain included without issue. However, I see nothing concrete to support it per WP:V, so it must go. Thanks for your assistance with this issue! Doc talk 01:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The newspaper is the Lemoore Advance-- see the source that you deleted as not "accurate .. enough". As for it not existing; it quite certainly did as can be seen here: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn2003061020/ Perhaps the Library of Congress adds up to zilch in your view? Now that the existence of the paper is clear; will you now admit that simply deleting any source that is not clickable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.185.254 (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The source does not have to be "clickable" at all, and I never said it did: I add stuff from printed books into articles all the time, taking care to add page numbers, ISBNs, etc. You have not established the claim that he has been a cattle enthusiast since childhood with your sources, so I suggest you figure out the best way to do that. Doc talk 02:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The cited article -- in the lemoore advance -- states this. You have deleted this reference on what grounds I have no clue. I can only assume that its because its not online. Since original research isn't allowed; I obviously can't scan and post this article. Nice catch 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.185.254 (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case, it's not as if one source alone would really establish it, especially in a BLP where the material is challenged. When multiple reliable sources agree, at least to the extent that it was reported, that's a great start towards including something. Even after that there are quite often other issues with WP:NPOV. Long story. Good luck to you! Doc talk 05:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

War on Terror

A year has passed since protection was initiated. Can you lower protection settings to "pending changes" level, and leave the name still move-protected? --George Ho (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, George! I'd love to help you, but I am not an admin. Pending changes certainly couldn't hurt. Cheers :) Doc talk 23:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Template

Thank you for making that post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A lot is being undone here. I had no idea that people planned to delete that template.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem - I was a bit shocked when seeing IPs I'd tagged getting delisted! All involved are good editors, and this is just a loophole in consensus that must be dealt with. Cheers :) Doc talk 05:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup! Saturday October 5

Please join the Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. --Pharos (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hair

Please sing for me... Hair, because I have none, Funny, the itty bitty temper did not fall out with it! Have you ever spent week on the john, LITERALLY?!! chemo brain is the pits!!The only thing worse than fighting this cancer is warring with an HMO for EACH treatment!

• Bald and Beautiful
• Fond regards

— DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to hear that. Stay strong and know that you are loved. You will beat this! I know many who have. I know it's especially hard for women when they lose their hair. It will grow back prettier, don't worry! Doc talk 08:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! I'll try to read it all before I decide to comment, but I am unlikely to change my opinion of paid editing. Disclosurse is only going to generate more scrutiny that paid editors will tire of, which will lead inevitably to more sock and meat puppetry using "secret" transactions (like on elance). Sites that set themselves up to edit here aren't my cup of tea. Maybe it can work - who knows? Cheers :) Doc talk 16:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22

	Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)

Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn! Saturday September 7

Please join Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013! Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of— photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks. --EdwardsBot (talk)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon! Saturday November 2

Please join Wikipedia "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon on November 2, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for Greenwich Village articles on the history and the community. --Pharos (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

AN Discussion which includes issues of goading Eric Corbett

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding Eric Corbett, including issues of goading with respect to him. The discussion is WP:AN#Indefinite block of Eric Corbett. The section that you were (in)directly mentioned is WP:AN#Indefinite block of Eric Corbett#Request for Arbitration Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood26 and racism

I can actually see part of the point of where you're going with your concerns about what should be done with Collingwood26. All this drama began with me calling him a fucking moron. (Well, it started long before that with his behaviour, but that's another matter.) That description of mine wasn't wise, but the words actually contained more of my concerns than the racism issues. This guy has been here for two years and is only just now learning how to indent, despite uncountable attempts by others to try to get him to mend his ways. He often fails to sign his posts. In fact, the post where he notified me of the issue at AN/I was unsigned, and still is, despite me asking who wrote it! (Maybe I could have got off on a technicality. ) He says the stupidest things on the race front, but he also says some pretty weird things on other topics. He was a lone voice among many in the discussion that brought us all here, saying some very silly, over-the-top things about the achievements of our new Prime Minister, who is clearly on Collingwood's side of politics, so he's naturally a fan.

Rather than really being a racist, I tend to see Collingwood26 as just not very smart. As many have discovered, it's very difficult to discuss matters of any complexity with him. Such people never see what they are doing wrong. I'd have probably preferred those "trying" Collingwood26 for racism to concentrate more on the "moron" part of my initial concerns, and look at his competence. He's not a moron, but is he really capable of helping much here? If we're really building a quality encyclopaedia, competence has to be one of the most important attributes of a useful editor, and I'm not convinced that Collingwood26 IS competent. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

He can easily be blocked if deemed incompetent. Indefinitely, for that matter. I see the rush to site ban him as a politically correct witch hunt with no evidence to support a measure so extreme. Whatever his failings may be: he is not someone that the site needs to be protected from via a community ban. Doc talk 08:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I dunno about that. I do know that, at this point, I'm probably not the right person to be publicly suggesting that he is incompetent. That would probably be pushing things just a bit too far. I saw your concerns about the racism issue. I think it's serious, but that's me (I have some interesting things in my background that I could talk about some time), and there's obviously a massive diversity of views on it. Is it possible, do you think, to get someone (you, or who?) to try to swing the discussion over to just plain competence? It's kind of a lot less controversial than racism. HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Firstly: do you think this editor should be site-banned? Doc talk 10:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

So you want me to swing the discussion for a site ban (which I oppose) to... what, exactly? I'm going to stick with the "shouldn't be site-banned without due cause" line of reasoning. Doc talk 10:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A site ban for incompetence. This is just a suggestion. I think he's a very disruptive editor, on almost any topic he tackles, because he just plain mucks things up and has a lousy perspective, creating lots of work for other editors tidying up his mess or removing the totally unacceptable stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would a site ban be needed to protect the project from his incompetence? Why is an indefinite block not sufficient? Why is he not blocked right now? The reason he is not blocked right now is that he does not need to be site-banned to prevent disruption. He doesn't need to be blocked for disruption, apparently, or he already would have been. If he is site-banned as it is, I will make it a goal to see that it is overturned due to lack of evidence that would demonstrate the need for a site ban. Doc talk 10:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I obviously asked the wrong person. I don't understand your position. You asking questions doesn't tell me. I'll give up now. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My position is very simple. There is simply no need to go to the extreme of a site ban for this user. Nor is there sufficient evidence to prove that a site ban is warranted to begin with, aside from a bunch of iVotes on the drama board. Site bans are for exceptionally disruptive users: and this is not one of them. Doc talk 11:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 - You keep saying I'm an Abbott fanboy, then why don't you look at one of my previous edits on his biography where I tried to put in the "Expenses Scandal". That was not a positive for Mr Abbott (not that I'm a fan of him anyway), but it ended up being deleted. Also I have made plenty of great articles Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars is also pretty much entirely my work, (still working on it though).--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

More irony

The GA is done: Talk:Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172, resound, ye songs (still laughing) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"Don't trust anything on Wikipedia" is what they say...[26] Doc talk 14:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6

Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013! Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for borough articles on the history and the communities. Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~

Speedy deletion nomination of Bbb23 is a motherfucker

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Bbb23 is a motherfucker, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably should go ;> I moved it from that page, after all... And I passed it along to our friend, the creator of the page. Doc talk 09:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)