User talk:Doc9871/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Picture of Robbie Robertson in interview

I'm sorry, that's a dreadful photo of Mr Robertson. It would only belong in the article if it was our only free photo of him. It can stay on Commons, but it really doesn't belong in the article.

Again, I'm sorry. DS (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well that's your opinion. It's the most recent image of him and it's free, which is what matters. The promo picture is not free and the permission is dubious. Take a look, e.g. at
you don't like it doesn't mean you alone decide that it's gone. I'm inserting it again, and I would recommend that you bring it up on the article's talk page and get consensus for its exclusion. Cheers... Doc talk 22:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Mac

"Fortune, on his damned quarrel smiling,

Showed like a rebel's whore." — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Look like the innocent flower,
But be the serpent under it." ;> Doc talk 03:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To quote my UNfavorite person: " You betcha!" — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

;> Doc talk 02:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson

hey doc- i'm new to this whole process. truth is, robbie robertson is my dad and i've just been trying to help out by updating info and more importantly correcting a lot of misinformation. honestly i just didn't think it was a very flattering photo and didn't really want it on the page. i had no idea there was a protocol and apologize for going about this improperly. as for the pic from 1971 i didn't want that either but it took me a while to learn how to upload a newer, nicer and more appropriate image. i would prefer to not have the image you've uploaded on the page but at the end of the day it really isn't that big of a deal. i hope you understand. i'm just learning as i go. all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrophelia (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • EDIT** I'd also like to add that if you took the time to take the photo and upload it i'm sure you're a fan and if there is a way to privately exchange email addresses i'd be more than happy to get you a signed copy of the album of your choice. once again, i'm sorry for any bad feelings, just trying to figure all this stuff out. cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrophelia (talk • contribs) 16:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - sometimes I'm known for getting a bit "prickly", and I know you're acting in good faith like I am. Your Dad is a living music legend, and you're quite right that I'm a fan :> I had to fight just to even get him credited with singing vocals with The Band - check the history of that page and you'll see.[1] I'm also sorry if I came off as harsh, and I wish I had a better camera when I was at the interview. It's a little out-of-focus, but as a candid shot it's just that: and I certainly didn't mean it appear to be unflattering at all. I'm not the type to hold many grudges, and you won't see me complaining about the image you uploaded one little bit. Hopefully the article can get beyond the state that it's in, as it needs a lot of work, and one image isn't going to make or break it. Cheers, and you can send me an e-mail via the "E-mail this user" feature and I'd be honored to have an autograph! I could have met him at the end of the interview but I figured with all the others there he probably just wanted to get out of there... Doc talk 00:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Can Change

Of course it can, but it didn't in my case. In reality consensus never changed which is why I feel application of rules on this site is arbitrary. Wikipedia loses many good editors and the motivation of many others because people act the way they (you included) did in my user page debate. Anber (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just pointed you towards the policies and guidelines we have in place. I told you I think you're probably a great guy and a valuable editor. Hopefully you'll stick around and contribute positively here. Cheers... Doc talk 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Shia LaB[eo]uf

 Done Sorry for that, the disadvantage of using Wikipedia as source. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 08:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - NP :> This all started when I noticed he credited Marion Ross for a film. He's used 3 different IPs to spam fake credits for all kinds of actors - some active imagination he's got. The mess is extensive to say the least... Doc talk 08:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After this I believe everything you said. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 08:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaa! A voice from beyond the grave: quite an accomplishment ;> Doc talk 08:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Engine That Could...

Thanks for fixing The Little Engine That Could (2011 film) and David Mitton. It seemed a plausible but pretty unlikely change, and I couldn't find anything online to confirm or deny, so had to AGF. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:> No problem - I had no idea what I was getting into with this edit. Hopefully they'll leave their dream cast to their dreams in the future... Doc talk 14:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Partial followup to this. Thanks for the catch of this film and Firebreather that this IP entered on Bill Nighy's article. Turns out the IP in question entered a batch of actors as doing voicework on Firebreather that were incorrect. That would seem to cast further doubt on TLETC film. I removed those but future edits by this IP may need watching. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 14:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three IPs is what also pissed me off, all the same user. Hopefully we shut them down for a bit - that's the only effective way to deal with vandals in my mind. Make them so sure they'll get reverted instantly that they'll get bored and move on to trolling on other sites. Doc talk 14:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)More followup - just caught up to your post on Rossrs page - and your reply of course. Thanks for your thoroughness in tracking down all of the different IPS that are making the bogus edits. Your vigilance is appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 14:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When Paul Frees and Sebastian Cabot contribute posthumous voice roles decades after their deaths, it seals the deal for exclusion ;> Doc talk 15:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to let you know that the IP editor that you dealt with last week has returned as 75.213.164.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It looks like this troll may be here for a bit so you may come across him/her again. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! This is childish trolling, and hopefully with diligence we can end their fun. I'll keep looking... Doc talk 01:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Robertson

On Thursday, Robbie Robertson will be interviewed on the national CBC radio program Q. It's available by livestream, podcast, and a pile of other feeds (including many interviews on Youtube). Given that it appears to be a "durable" recording that can be listened to repeatedly (and used as a reference), it is likely that you will be able to glean some useful information from it. Just thought you'd be interested to know. :-) Risker (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the info, and I'll definitely check it out! I'll be pretty limited in my ability to edit until Wednesday - got a nasty virus on my laptop and have to excise it. One of those ones that loads a fake anti-virus program, then firewalls your ability to get on the internet without it. Disgusting. Anyway, I just saw Levon Helm at his Midnight Ramble in Woodstock, and it was awesome! If I ever get a chance to see Garth Hudson I will have seen all of the surviving members of The Band. Thanks again for the tip, and Cheers... Doc talk 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology, if offense given

I saw your last comment at the Wikiquette page, and I hope I'm not offending. I am kind of two minds about what to suggest there, and really just want all of them to just work it out. I know I said "smack the lot of you" but I guess its just a way of suggesting they get it worked out together. -- Avanu (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - you didn't offend me :> WQA is the pit stop for editors to work things out among themselves, while AN/I is for asking for blocks to be imposed for disruption.
WP:CIVIL is a gray area at times, and the two boards overlap there. The best WQA reports I've seen were always resolved between the parties involved with no blocks needed for either. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Good to know. Sometimes I wonder if I'm helping or not. -- Avanu (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you're not helping, people usually let you know ;> One way or the other. Giving your honest opinion can't really hurt anything, and that's what the community thing is all about - diverse community, diverse opinions. Doc talk 07:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment ...

  • Note - ClaudioSantos, you've indicated in nine different edit summaries that you had made your "last/last comment here/last comment in this thread". I'm kind of not believing that the one above is truly your last comment either, you know? Last comment means no further comments after you make your last one. Either make your last comment and mean it, or don't continue to say it's your last comment when it clearly isn't. It appears to some as disingenuous. Doc talk 19:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working ina sort mobile, so it is difficult to correct my editions. But I meant that it was goind to be my last comment, and I am just finishing it, adding some minor fixe, etc. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool - but you can't remove comments from other users like that (only on your own talk page can you do this). I restored it. Nine times is a lot, and there are edits in between most of them with no edit summaries. I kept seeing the edit summaries on my watchlist and got a little suspicious. Cheers... Doc talk 19:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me delete it because it is off topic and I think the thing is resolved here. And I think now my comment is finished also. so it is truly my last comment on that thread. Yes, I added and corrected links and wording, and sometimes the changes do not appear because I've deleted the entire comment and rewrote it with the changes, because of thecnical matters as I told you. So could you delete yourself your comment? We no need more noise or things to add in that delicate thread. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's NOT cool is you removing it again. See
WP:TPO: "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." You did not have my permission, and your removal did not meet the guidelines. Editors who insist on removing the comments of others often find themselves in trouble. I recommend that you not do it again to me or anyone else. Doc talk 19:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I am asking for your permission to do so. But if you can't then I will had to add some coments on your comment in that thread. Do not you worry. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You add whatever you want - it won't worry me a bit, if that was supposed to be a threat. I've been here a lot longer than you and have quite a few more edits. I know how these things work. No, you cannot remove it, especially since you took it upon yourself to do it twice when you're not even supposed to do it at all. Doc talk 20:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Threating you? I was explainig that unfortunately I would have to add even more comments on that thread, if you don't want to delete your comment. But I think this will be also my last comment here, I hope. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably a good idea. I have very little tolerance for editors who say they're making their last comment nine separate times, then refactor the comments that don't suit them (and make them small and then collapse them). If you want actual advice on how to conduct your business here: I never ban anyone but trolls and vandals from my talk page, so you're welcome back anytime. Good luck in your endeavors... Doc talk 03:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

Glamis thou art, and Cawdor; and shalt be
What thou art promised. Yet do I fear thy nature;
It is too full o' the milk of human kindness
To catch the nearest way: thou wouldst be great

— DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hie thee hither,
That I may pour my spirits in thine ear
And chastise with the valor of my tongue
All that impedes thee from the golden round,
Which fate and metaphysical aid doth seem
To have thee crowned withal." ;> Doc talk 04:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tasteless gloating

Doc, the comment at AN/I that I removed was exactly what the edit summary I used said it was: Tasteless gloating. If you knew the history, you'd know that. I'm removing it again. Kindly refrain from restoring it. Collect and Rklawton exchanged pleasantries with each other earlier about the (to them) appealing prospect of my leaving Wikipedia, and Collect bragged about how many editors he's fought with here who have left. I'm considering adding to that number, and he's trying to help me to do so. He knows perfectly well that I know our BLP policy, and his instructing me in it has been a favorite way of his to goad me. That comment from Jimmy, and the work I put in here to merit that, is one of the things I'm most gratified by in my time here. I don't need Collect's comment to diminish that, and I purposely didn't link to the archive, anyway, since it would be better to keep that less visible than more. It was a hugely contentious issue for Wikipedia, and we don't need links to it. I'm pretty disgusted with this place overall right now. Please don't restore the comment again.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is: we cannot remove comments from other editors at AN/I. If we could, it would be a free-for-all. I won't restore it, but I would advise you not to remove comments from others as a matter of policy. We all get frustrated, but we simply can't go around removing what we don't like. Good luck in this one... Doc talk 09:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatroller at
WP:PERM

Hi Doc9871,

I saw your request at

ignore it
! :)

Thanks for all your work on the wiki.

Hope this helps,

The Helpful One 23:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I really appreciate the kind words, and I certainly won't abuse the priv! Cheers :> Doc talk 23:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I do not appreciate your open contempt for admin procedure, and it does not demonstrate the trust that is required for any tools. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "open contempt": I didn't ask the admin that gave me the priv off-wiki for the right, either. Ask him about it. Admins are humans and are prone to make mistakes like anyone else. I've corrected more than one admin on policy before, and you can believe that. The very second I abuse the privilege which will NEVER happen you can say "I told you so". Happy editing as well to you :> Doc talk 05:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll note this: your only given basis for denying me was, "Sorry, but the general threshold is 50 articles not including redirects. You have only created one article." When you found that another admin had granted me the priv (thus "going against you") you accused me of "open contempt for admin procedure" (just above), that my "contempt for administrator decisions does not demonstrate that he can be trusted with anything" (let alone the privs I already have), that you had "thoroughly reviewed your editing history before making my decision" (not a basis, considering you said you denied me only because I hadn't created enough articles), and that you would bring the admin who granted me the priv before Arbcom for "overriding" you. Get your ducks in a row before you make your case, because I will dig deep and hard if need be. Doc talk 07:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Talpiot

East Talpiot is NOT in the West Bank. It is west of the 1949 Green Line in what is called No Man's Land. The international community has NOT indicated that any settlements in No Man's Land are illegal. A blind man can see it on a map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.13.42.240 (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reliable source that says "The work, in East Talpiot settlement, is aimed at creating a belt around East Jerusalem that would sever it from the rest of the West Bank, the group says." Sever it from the rest of the West Bank. What say you to that? If this is POV pushing, reliable sources such as the BBC will solve that right quickly... Doc talk 09:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Screw your courage to the sticking-place. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...Will I with wine and wassail so convince
That memory, the warder of the brain,
Shall be a fume, and the receipt of reason
A limbeck only." ;> Doc talk 10:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP Hopping

I have no choice in "IP hopping" as you call it. I work in the NHS and everytime I make an outside connection I'm automatically allocated a different IP within the NHS's N3 range. As I attempted to tell Bouncehopper, I have never vandalised Wikipedia, just because the IP range I use has vandals doesn't mean everyone from that range is. The NHS employs hundreds of thousands of people. There is no requirement for an editor to create an account and login name, so I will continue to edit in this way. --194.176.105.38 (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recent connection between the Proof (2005 film) for so many of the same IPs you use and the fact that it is clearly you who has been reverting Bouncehoper is pretty uncanny. I'll be looking into this, you can trust... Doc talk 10:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look away. In the meantime please read
WP:AGF is worth reviewing too. --194.176.105.42 (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Have you yourself ever made an edit to the Proof film? Or were those all other editors that made them before you started reverting Bouncehoper? Doc talk 10:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I myself have never edited that article. I'm sure someone using an NHS connection has vandalised the article, but it wasn't me. You need to realise that with the number of employees the NHS has (1.4 million in 2005 according to this article in the Telegraph), that there is likely to be crossover and re-use of the IP addresses. --194.176.105.46 (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and all of the IPs used to revert Bouncehoper are you and not someone else, correct? Doc talk 10:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about any of his other edits, but I've only reverted the ones where Bouncehopper failed to follow
WP:NFCC and have subsequently been deleted. --194.176.105.40 (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Fine. So for this[4] IP, the most recent edit was not you, the next two were you and the remaining ones were not you. Correct? Doc talk 11:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of those I made was the one to Bouncehopper's talk page[5]. --194.176.105.56 (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay: so this[6] edit was you, this[7] edit was not you and this[8] edit was you again. Right? Doc talk 11:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.--194.176.105.40 (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the constructive edits to The Twilight Saga (film series) were not made by you, right? Doc talk 11:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No they weren't. --194.176.105.40 (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr./Ms. Anonymous, you never "attempted to tell" me anything [amended, you just did, but you posted this before you did so you still fail] (the name is Bouncehoper, one p, by the way, thanks for paying attention). I understand that there are hundreds of IPs at your place of work, but A. how do we know which edits are actually you and B. really? You're doing this at work? Are your supervisors ok with this?
Not only that, you followed me and got my pictures deleted? Thanks. Really, thanks. I'm so glad I put effort into uploading and linking those when some random vigilante with a grudge on some other issue decides to latch on to my page and destroy my work. Frankly, that's rude. And you may spout that IPs are human all you want-- they are, but when ones with your history edit pages, those of us who have actually registered are wary.
Again, STOP FOLLOWING ME. PLEASE. It's creepy.
Bouncehoper (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bad edits from these accounts far exceed the good ones, and I'm not at all convinced that this isn't "smoke and mirrors" in a
WP:GHBH situation using different IPs. Edits to articles like Methotrexate one minute apart seem more than odd.[9] I'll get back to you guys on this, but it will be later today. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Can I suggest you learn how IP addresses work, especially dynamic IP addresses allocated by WANs and ISPs, before deciding all edits from a particular IP must be the same person? 94.14.83.153 (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now who on earth might you be? I know how disruptive editors use the fact that dynamic IPs are harder to trace to a particular user; but I'm pretty good at figuring out when a disruptive user is using that to their "advantage". Doc talk 05:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And your next edit is to revert Bouncehoper. Hmmm. Total coincidence? Right... Doc talk 05:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
um, no I'm the same person. God forbid someone should have access to more than one internet connection. 94.14.83.153 (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well no shit you're the same person. You are hounding this editor, and I will see that it stops because you think by hopping IPs you are somehow getting one over on others. It's an old trick, trust me. Doc talk 06:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If by "hounding" you mean "ensuring his edits comply with the manual of style" then guilty as charged. I have no control over the "IP hopping" they are allocated dynamically, or are you really that unable to understand? --194.176.105.35 (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is a guideline.
WP:HARASSMENT is a policy. One that you continue to violate. Policy trumps guidelines. Are you able to understand this? Doc talk 14:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Once again, thank you very much for the support, Doc. Would I be wrong to report this person for harassment? They appear to be increasingly harassing of me and you.
Bouncehoper (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any bad edits. So if anyone is being harassed that would be me from you.

WP:CIVIL is also policy, you would do well to read it and preferably understand it. 94.14.83.153 (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

You should take your own advice then, person. "God forbid someone should have access to more than one internet connection." and "are you really that unable to understand?" Also, if we're talking about policy, again, there is that nice little loophole of 3RR that you have circumvented.
One more thing-when we assume good faith and that one is a human, we do not go after them and blindly revert their other edits simply because we do not agree with the first "offending" edits. You have stepped out of line time and again, and I don't think we'd be incorrect to file a report against your ill treatment of us and this system.
Bouncehoper (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a blocked or banned user? If so, report them. If you know who this is make a SPI report. Hey Doc #1 come give details. ;) --CrohnieGalTalk 19:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Bouncehoper - No problem! You would certainly not be out of line to file a report for harassment (specifically
gaming the system
with different IPs this user makes it difficult to block them for any considerable length of time. If this were a registered user they most most likely already have been blocked indefinitely for "personal attacks and harassment". I'll see what I can do...
@Crohnie - Hello! I would not be at all surprised if this were a blocked/banned user. When they reply to my pointing out that policy trumps guidelines with "be civil", this shows a fundamental lack of understanding of our policies: something most blocked/banned users have in common. I told them the frivolousness of filing an AIV report against Bouncehoper but they did it anyway, and it was removed without comment or action by an administrator.[10] I'll keep you updated - BTW did you get my e-mail? Yes, a certain "someone" has returned, but it's not who you might think... Doc talk 23:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should I file anyways, or wait until they return? Bouncehoper (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wait - they are being watched closely. Please let me know if they follow you to revert you even one more time or otherwise impede your editing: the block will come down swiftly. It's all on the record anyway. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello Doc. Thanks for your work on the ANI thread that BMK started. It is good to know that you and others are on the lookout for this persons nonsense. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - no problem :> I couldn't believe the "cast list" I found on Adventures from the Book of Virtues - this could be a bigger problem than we're even aware of. Cheers :> Doc talk 22:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it's OK

I appreciate your defense of the Frank Buckles page on Malleus's talk page. Don't waste your breath with him, cause he doesn't get it and isn't going to. Thanks though. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that one of us doesn't get it, and I've no doubt that time will tell which one of us that is.
Fatuorum 05:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Drop the stick Malleus. You shouldn't be judge, jury and executioner of content around here because most are afraid of you. I sure as hell am not. Even when you're told you're respected you shit all over those that don't agree 100% with you. You need to grow up and get off your high horse, not the "children who run this site". Doc talk 05:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't presume to lecture to me.
Fatuorum 05:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
No one can - I know all about it. You're just another editor; don't forget about that. Doc talk 05:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "judge, jury and executioner" on any article, and I grew up long before you did, if indeed you have, which seems to me to be unlikely.
Fatuorum 05:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

As to Malleus, fortunately not ALL of Wikipedia's very best editors come with such baggage. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the overwhelming majority of them can't even write, but such is life.
Fatuorum 05:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

No open secret

If you think someone I blocked is still editing, let me know the basics: who I blocked, and what other account or IP you think is him. I enforce my blocks pretty rigorously, but I don't always notice, and I can't monitor everything.—Kww(talk) 08:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's freakin' Jack Merridew editing from 125.162.150.88 (talk · contribs). Doc talk 08:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a troublesome block, because technically I blocked the account for being compromised, not the person for misbehaviour. You caught me at an insomniac moment (it's 2 in the morning). When I get up for real in the morning, I'll look this over, and let you know what I decide to do.—Kww(talk) 08:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to know if he was allowed to edit openly as an IP. Because it is pretty obvious what is going on. Just wanted to be sure it's allowed when he's indeffed is all. Doc talk 08:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Butting In Between Jack and Me

I didn't find either of your comments helpful, where you first called me a troll and then you gave me "advice" on what you think I'm "obsessed" about. Jack's a big boy, and he doesn't need his buddies chiming in when it comes to dealing with me. I've got almost 8,000 edits here, and maybe 1-2% are devoted to Jack. That's obsession for you. I won't even get into the background or why I even went to that page, but you don't need to stick up for him. It was between me and him, and it was over, but you came back with another comment to pour petrol on the dying embers of the fire. Please don't do it again, if (and hopefully never) there is another opportunity. Cheers... Doc talk 11:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't care whether you find my comments helpful or not. You simply need to understand that following other editors around and interjecting unrelated comments in order to draw a response (as you did on User talk:Snottywong[11]), is behaviour that is not tolerated on Wikipedia. And if I didn't point that out to you, someone else would have. Snottywong did not deserve to have you bring your battles onto his talk page, so please accept this as a friendly warning. You seem to be capable of doing constructive work here, so why not stick with that? --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snottywog made it clear that I hijacked a thread and removed all the mess from the both of us - mea culpa for going there. But here's what "following other editors around" is: after our little tiff Jack went straight to Tickle Cock Bridge to congratulate Malleus simply because he and I had just had an argument over it (see above). After that, he went straight to Ted Bundy because I've been working on it and had just made a comment on the talk page of that article. That is following around. What did I do after our tiff? Moved on and fought the errors that bring this project into disrepute (whether or not some feel that is a waste of time is immaterial to me). I appreciate your advice and am sorry if I was curt with you, but I think you'll find that I don't stalk his edits and that I rarely interact with him. Cheers... Doc talk 22:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far, that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd return a quote, but here's the deal: this is the most hypocritical smarmy troll I've ever encountered, is an absolute negative to this project, and should just go away before I rip his head off for real. It's truly sad how many good-faith editors he's managed to snow by sucking up and "improving" their user pages, and I am sickened that he's lied once again and returned after promising he'd finally go away.
WP:AGF lines are drawn when dealing with people like this, and I've lost all tolerance and good faith in this "user". Block me for incivility for saying this? I've got so many diffs it's not even amusing. Cheers, good editors who are working to improve Wikipedia... Doc talk 06:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
No personal attacks, asshole. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocrisy defined. Move along, son... Doc talk 07:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Doc9871. I don't know why Jack's mere existence makes you crazy, but in my opinion he is not a negative to the project. He's one of the smartest people here. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 07:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Join the club. Of the smartest people on this project, that is. Notice how I don't resort to name-calling (normally). Not a fan. Doc talk 07:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - And I whole-heartedly invite all of his pals to initiate an AN/I thread on my alleged hounding of him. As I've said, I've got so many diffs in cold storage that only a fool would be confused as to what actual wiki-hounding is. Don't follow me after the fact, Jack, to articles you have only come to because I was there just before you were. That's crap and you know it. Doc talk 07:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL; keeping “lists-of-bad-acts” is a defining characteristic of bad-faith editors. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't post on your page after you erased my edits there. I won't erase yours here, either. Edit somewhere else that people that can call you out can't be followed by you. Go. Away. Doc talk 08:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interested talk page watchers might like to read a related thread at User talk:Diannaa#Jack Merridew. --Diannaa (Talk) 16:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to reply there, but I see he's already back attempting to trash me yet again. Yawn. Keep in mind I've never had one "official" warning for anything, let alone a block/blocks for disruption. I'm well aware that he has his unwavering supporters, and that's just fine. If all he did was gnomish code work that'd be awesome. That is hardly the case, and it's not just ancient history. His little "revolution" idea may work on an island full of schoolboys, but routing the ranks of the administration of those that he feels should be gone is beyond the scope of reality, thank God. He will certainly never be an admin here, and that probably doesn't sit well with him. I have no interest whatsoever in being one, and that's yet another way in which we differ. Rest assured, if there's a RfC/U opened on this guy I'll be there with bells on. Until then, I want nothing at all to do with Jack Merridew, and I'll thank him to keep his "bullshite" like "No personal attacks, asshole" off of this page. I won't erase it if he does, as I find that childish. Sorry if I lost my temper, but he's called me enough names to push me to the limit. His accusing me of "outting" his IP is simply laughable, BTW: he made it crystal clear who it was before I let him know that I saw that he was back after supposedly quitting this project, albeit blocked for whatever "compromise" that account suffered. Cheers... Doc talk 03:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I usually confine my comments to this page to the spirit of Macbeth, but I feel I must interject that Doc is in an exclusive category in Wiki of the "Most fair." I have found his comments and/or criticisms to friend and foe alike to be
consistently reasonable. To those who would mock him, I too am consistent:
It is a tale
Told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - you know I greatly appreciate your support, and you know I haven't always agreed with you :> We're all wrong from time to time, especially me, and when I've gently told you that I thought you were you wrong you always took it in excellent stride: a class act. By the way: have you heard from Crohnie recently? I've sent her several e-mails and voiced my concern on her page as to her disappearance, and her RL health issues have got me worried. Send me an e-mail if you don't want to discuss it here, and I hope she's just on a wiki-break. Cheers :> Doc talk 20:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi, I'm back though it's probably going to be limited for awhile. Yes, Thursday morning 911 was again called and this time it was almost 'last call' for me. I got out yesterday around noon though I'm not 100%, I am doing a lot better but need work. :) Check emails about this. As for the above, I just caught up with it I think and would like to add some things.
To Dianna, I think you should know I also read your talk page about this and your comments about color and the blind. Just for clarification, WHL was and is sight impaired, which is why she found the discussions on the color important for sight impaired editors not because she wanted to add "pretties" as you said.
To the rest of you, Jack said he was leaving. His accounts were blocked. Arbcom told him he could only use his Jack Merridew account and he didn't like it and retired, came back and left again and is again back with IP usage. I honestly don't know if using IP's is in violation to what the arbitrators have said about using one account but I guess it should be looked into. Just some quick comments. Just in case this is brought up, yes, I was a friend of WHL while she was an editor here. Jack is the main reason for her leaving, do the research if you don't believe. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crohnie Gal, so sorry to hear your health issues have been keeping you from enjoying life. I have already done research, and the facts you share about Jack are not news to me. Recently Jack applied to have the last of his Arbcom restrictions lifted Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Further discussion and was treated rather poorly. Note in particular Coren's remarks. After this Jack decided to withdraw his services, a la John Galt. His Jack Merridew account was compromised somehow, and it was blocked for that reason. What will happen next I can't foretell but even knowing all the history I still think highly of Jack. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Do take care. Oh, and have a look at this. --Diannaa (Talk) 20:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll get my health back a bit from this last episode, just take a long time. :( I know Jack has his fans and that's alright. I don't have any grudges or problems with him except one. When he targets an editor he feels is against him he goes after them with gusto which is what I understand he did long ago, prior to my being here at the project. I've seen this and it's not nice. He has to learn to play nice with all, friends and foes alike. I admit I don't approve of him having 10 socks like he was asking for. In my opinion, no one needs to have so many. I personally think that everyone should have only one, maybe two accounts, + a bot if needed, with the second being used for jokes or unsecure use. Why would anyone need so many socks? All that does is cause confusion for editors who don't know they are joke accounts which can be seen in Jack's request to have the rest of his sanctions lifted. During that time he used his Gold Hat account he was taken to SPI at least 2 times for being a sock puppet by editors who didn't know better during the request you mention above. I know Doc9871 doesn't mind this discussion continuing here which is why I am responding to you here so that the discussion doesn't get fractured. I would still like to know if using an IP is considered using another account? This question is more for info than about Jack. I wish Jack all the best and have no problems at all with him being an editor. I also agree that his request to lift the sanctions was handled poorly. I also saw the this at RexxS pages when it was made. That's ok too, though a little too dramatic for my taste. I don't remember anything about accounts being compromised, he scuttled them. It even says that his Jack Merridew and Gold Hat accounts were scuttled. Like I said, there has to be a proper way to handle all of this now without all the drama that seems to be starting again at least that's what looks like is happening now. Well anyways, good luck to all, this is not of any major or even minor importance to me at this time. Have a good night or day, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kww blocked the Jack Merridew acount on March 26 as being compromised. Jack had already marked it as scuttled. There were two edits that were oversighted; I don't know their contents; I missed viewing these edits by about 10 mins. I don't know whether or not it is OK for Jack to be editing using an IP but it is not my call. He did declare to arbcom that he was doing so with this edit. Nice to meet you at last. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 22:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to meet you too, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing issues you raised on my talkpage back in December 2010

Hi, Doc9871!
I'm attempting put right previous wrongs. Back in December 2010, you wrote on my talkpage:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Very valid concern, and thank you for raising that point. I hope to have followed your constructive criticism from then on.
Thanks again. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh - okay I see what that was about.[12] Sorry about the templated warning - I didn't really know your motivation for reverting me when you did, so I left the standard Level 1
WP:WARN template. I didn't actually write the full warning: it's here. Anyway, I haven't seen you causing any problems, and hopefully everything is going well for you! Cheers :> Doc talk 12:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Apology

With regard to the expletive remark, I want to let you know that although at the time I was trying to make a strong point, it might have been better to use a different wording. I was trying to show that uncivil or biting remarks can be hurtful to other editors through use of such remarks. Like I said, it might have been done better, and I'm sorry for doing anything to hurt or attack you. We're here to work together and I should be setting an example in my actions, not letting things become more charged. In future I will work hard to treat you positively. I can't say for sure whether we'll be in agreement or not, but I'll work as hard as I can to make things as good as they can be. -- Avanu (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. You didn't "hurt or attack" me, but as Milton Berle once said to Richard Pryor: "Pick your spots, Baby." Cheers... Doc talk 06:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I'm not sure why you seem so keen on characterizing me in various negative ways. Would you mind explaining a bit? -- Avanu (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just got a weird comment from an IP editor, 125.162.150.88, who made the statement that you might think that I am that same editor. As I said to him, I looked into this after getting their comment, because I have been a little surprised by the intensity of your commentary at me. So, what I am to do here? I don't want you running around with a misimpression and I don't like the idea of having to prove myself to some random person on the internet. So you tell me a suitable way to end this impression, if you have it. If this IP editor is mistaken, then lets move on, but I don't really want to see more problems occur through no fault of my own. There are enough things in real life and here to deal with. -- Avanu (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to say anything more negative about you. Clearly, the "STFU" comment at the WQA rankled me (as it would anyone), and you knew it would. I was quite surprised at the intensity of that comment, especially since I've been familiar with the editor I was talking to for some time. I'm over it by now.
As far as the "IP" editor: I'm not at all surprised at his comments, the title he chose for the thread or his sudden involvement in the situation. He's already edited your talk page back in January, so I can't say he hasn't been there before. However, regarding his interest in this issue, he can't seem to resist stalking my edits; it's something he has been known to do to several other editors for a long time. I don't think you are him and never said as much, and I had already seen what he brought up to you. So, yes, he is incorrect when he says I think you are him. I wouldn't worry about it.
The reason I said what I said at AN/I stems from the fact that you do seem to have a very extensive knowledge of WP: far more than an editor with only 12 edits in 2006 and an IP that started back up in late 2010. If you've been using other IPs or even another account between early 2006 and late 2010 (which is certainly no crime) it would explain how you gained that knowledge on your lengthy break. Otherwise, to a casual observer, it would seem very strange indeed how you managed to amass such an understanding of WP so quickly. That's all. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what there is to understand at WP exactly. Obviously I'm still not completely knowledgeable, but I can see there is a definite 'culture' of Wikipedia. I tend to go and read and review what the policies are when people quote them, because initally it just sounds like a bunch of jargon. But no, between 2006 and 2010, I didn't do anything on Wikipedia except google it and look stuff up. My impression of things in Wikipedia is that there is kind of a language for how things work here, certain expectations that seem weird at times, and subcultures that vie for attention or power. Pretty much like anything else, honestly. More than anything else, there is a huge barrier to entry on Wikipedia because of the way the edit boxes work and all this wiki-markup you have to learn. Its far too manual and cumbersome.
Anyway, on the IP editor, just hopefully a bit of friendly advice. Don't let Wikipedia get to be too overarching or consuming or personal. Like I told him, I went and reviewed the history of the edits and can see he's gotten under your skin a bit, and maybe its my newness showing through, but it doesn't seem like this platform (Wikipedia) is worth getting too wound up over. -- Avanu (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't bother me, it merely adds more proof of his
hounding me after I disengaged like six days ago. Crap like this is priceless stuff, really. Happy editing :> Doc talk 12:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

ANI

Since I mentioned you in this discussion, I should have notified you about it sooner, but I kinda forgot. Sorry about that. I'd advise you don't join in at this point though; Jack seems to have free rein to say whatever he wants with no consequences it seems. Or maybe I just have too many people who dislike me, I dunno. SilverserenC 14:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching it, believe me. He has cultivated a group of friends that will come in and defend him when he calls on them. The tables are turned on the reporter, and you wind up having "boomerang" taunts afterwards. Those that aren't his most direct supporters will try to focus on whatever issue the current problem is over is solved, then that's it. Meanwhile, three different editors on three different issues are harassing him. The "mob", the "trolls", the "toxic" ones. It's pretty juvenile stuff, especially the butt-smooching of the arbs. I don't know if I'll say anything there or not, as nothing is going to change. We'll see - thanks for the notice :> Doc talk 14:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

Is IT, or another troll? See K. Bouley. Cheers, — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Late reply) It doesn't look like it. I'd say just a random troll. Hey, BTW, I'm pretty sure that this isn't "canvassing", so go here and vote (pro or con). Cheers :> Doc talk 07:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange edit about user Rodhullandemu

You wrote that user:Rodhullandemu is blocked and the case closed; no good reason whatsoever for that edit that you can see. You're so right, my mistake. I just wanted to express my approval for withdrawing his Admin status, as I felt mistreated by him some time ago. Only, I did it in the wrong place. I was just going to revert my edit before anyone noticed, but you beat me to it. Sorry! --AVM (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then. Doc talk 22:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Return of voice cast vandal

I've asked admin JamesBWatson, who semi'd the articles last time, to re-protect them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I can't believe they're back at this. It's just weird - what is the fascination with Pat Buttram and Glenn Shadix? Sigh... Doc talk 05:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, seems like an awfully strange and specific obsession. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Dorn seems to be a favorite target as well. What did these men do to deserve this? So weird... ;> Doc talk 05:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JBW protected 6 articles that the vandal has hit, but not

Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series), which haven't been hit yet this time around, so you might want to a those to your watchlist, if they're not there already. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the update - they just hit Glenn Shadix again with the Sleepy Hollow credit that is not supported by IMDB's entries on that film or Shadix's page. Very annoying. Cheers :> Doc talk 17:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following what's happening and keeping JBW abreast of it. If I miss something feel free to let him know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - you saw the "Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's" stuff? Another favorite target of this odd vandal. I trust IMDB far more than this IP-hopper, and my watchlist is growing... Doc talk 22:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw it, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking

Are you online now? Check your email for a laugh. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll e-mail you back later today :> Doc talk 17:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lawford

Hi. This isn't a pressing issue, but I wanted you to know that I mentioned you name in response to User:BHillbillies here in regards to the lovely message they left on my talk page here. Have a good one. Pinkadelica♣ 17:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - I'll look at the situation later on. Cheers :> Doc talk 17:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your CEDU edits

I have moved the contributions of two editors (75.54.92.32 and Doc9871) within the article to the Influence section. While the information may be true, Cascade School was not a CEDU property. In addition the information was not sourced. If you wish for the information to remain part of this article you will have to cite sources, otherwise I will delete it after a reasonable period of time.I ♥ ♪ ♫(talk) 04:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - responded on the talk page. Doc talk 08:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance, even your talk page lurkers are welcomed

Hi, I'd like opinions on the last dozen + addition to serial killer if you or your lurkers wouldn't mind. Something seems off to me but I can't put my finger on what it is that feels off in this article. I could definitely use another opinion(s) on this. Thanks is advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. The statements are hinky and not well supported. Would consider a rollback and a proper researcher ;-) to work on this. Needs work for sure. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it - may take a few, as I'm still jazzed from seeing Ray LaMontagne in Central Park a few hours ago. The guy is freakishly good - check him out on YouTube. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Waaaay cool! xo — DocOfSoc • Talk • 19:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. As you are aware, I'm not up to any serious work right now. Hopefully RL will improve. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. Be well. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Badger Drink unblock

Just so you know, I'm not one of those folks that don't believe in civility blocks at all, I just think this one in particular was flawed. It's not that BD wasn't being rude, but there was no warning to stop or be blocked as is normal with civility blocks, and the situation was under discussion at WQA, which is specifically not a place where blocking is an option. Combine that with the fact that Prodego gave three different explanations of why he issued this block, and it all looks pretty unjustified. Some civility blocks are warranted, this just wasn't one of them.

talk) 06:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Believe me, I wasn't commenting on your unblock per se; but rather what I've traditionally seen when it comes to questionable civility blocks in general. One admin reverses another, feelings get hurt on a different level. I personally think unless there's consultation with the blocking admin on a block with an unblock request that doesn't meet the spirit of WP:GAB, blocks should stand by principle until such a time. Politics can easily come into play, especially when the one offended is under scrutiny themselves. No point in "re-reversing" it, and no judgement call on you at all, as I know you to be a good admin. I see it all the time, often with no unblock request at all before the decision is made :> Doc talk 06:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey

You're right, I've been here a while. I'm not currently blocked. We have crossed paths before, though. Hope you're doing well. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but I really don't want to have to find out. Don't take
WP:DTTR like you did to Ncmvocalist, and good luck with your future endeavors. Doc talk 07:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I responded at Ncmvocalist, but I'll reiterate here:
WP:DTTR isn't policy. So... Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Ncmvocalist, you may be blocked from editing. . Kthnxbai. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
(Groan). Doc talk 07:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that's how I felt when you kept undoing my comment. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Care to tell me where we've crossed paths before, as you asserted above? My memory fails me sometimes in my old age... Doc talk 07:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't actually remember, your username just seems familiar to me.24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed pretty specific that we had crossed paths before, though: not just that you recognized my username. You have no idea when that was at all? Doc talk 07:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, after a while, the years just start to run together. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I can tell you is that it's to your benefit to create an account, generally. I'm sure you've noted that IP editors get treated more "shabbily" than named accounts, and if you've had 12,000 contributions here and are proud of them, there's usually no reason to use random IPs to work here. Of course, there's no rule against it, and I've met quite a few truly good editors who wish to remain anonymous (as if creating a WP "handle" isn't anonymous in itself). Of course, many currently blocked and banned editors also use IPs to evade their sanctions, and when they announce how many contributions they have it often raises a few eyebrows, and certainly not just mine. If you're simply "retired" and chose to edit anonymously: bully for you. Not sure what else to say, as the jury's still out here. Good luck... Doc talk 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be missing the point. There is no jury currently:
WP:AGF says that there is a presumption that my intentions are good, my motives are pure, and I am not violating a block or socking. You're correct that IP editors get treated more "shabbily" than named accounts, but that's a problem with Wikipedia, not with me, and registering an account does nothing to rectify it. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Things like claiming 15,000 edits proudly on your 'user' page when there is no evidence for it are not helpful in determining your motives whether we all assume you are pure as the driven snow. AGF doesn't mean we stop being WP:HUMAN beings (registered users are human too, just like IPs). Sassy answers might sound cute or you might think you are justified in that attitude just because you "can". But it doesn't build trust and relationships. -- Avanu (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might mention a personal motto I made a long time ago. "Assume a person is your friend until they prove they are not." Its very much like the AGF rule here. But keep in mind there is a difference between that, and having trust in someone. -- Avanu (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IP starting with 24 has twice been blocked, and then twice had talk priv's taken away. AGF kind of erodes in those circumstances. Also, despite 24's whining, IP's in fact have several strategic advantages, one of which 24 notes here:[13] That kind of thing, of course, further erodes AGF. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness you came here and mentioned that! 24.177.120.138 (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm being a hypocrite by asking, but don't you have something more productive to do? The whole playing coy thing isn't really cute. You're welcome to edit as an IP forever, but like it or not, there is a bias. But grinning and acting like you're out to game the system somehow doesn't strike me as being good for your image as an editor. -- Avanu (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He wants us to think he's jerking us around, to divert attention from his jerking us around. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh.

Hi

Please don't assume things that you have know knowledge about. I never once was harrassing or making Crohnie feel unpleasant or whatever you accused me of doing. We had an agreement a month ago on something and she forgot. I'm just reminding her, did I know she was sick previously? Yes. I told her I hope she gets better and by all means take her time. Fast forward weeks later she's collaborating with others and not me, so I posted a message. Did I know she nearly died three times? No. So why are you coming in making me look like the bad guy when she told me she would collaborate with me. I never once said anything like, "I don't care about your health you need to work with me now!" No. I never said anything like that, I wished me best wishes for her and her health. So again, this is between me and her. DeadSend4 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do know the situation. I have known Crohnie for years, I watch both her page and the Cate Blanchett page, and your edit history shows that after over a month of not editing a thing you came and started in on her on that talk page and hers for not "collaborating" with you. How can she collaborate with you if you're not even editing at all? A look at the history of that page shows her making one edit to the article during the time you say she wouldn't work with you, and that was to revert some vandalism.[14] The last person to edit the talk page of the article in May was you, and the next person to edit it a month later was you.[15] How then, pray tell, are you seeing her collaborating with other people on that article and not you? I find that claim to be somewhat bizarre, actually. There is no
good faith editor as always. Take your own advice and "...just lay off Crohnie girl", okay? Work on the article on your own terms as you see fit. Cheers... Doc talk 04:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks Doc, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I am done for today. I tried to respond to the comments on my talk page. I think I was accurate in what I said but of course feel free to check out what I said. Thanks, talk soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprised at this response. I don't care how long you known this person, if she's your sister, bff, point is I was waiting for her to contribute to the article since she blocked me and accused me of several things. But I'm moving on and ignoring her. DeadSend4 (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never blocked you or anything else of this sort since I am not an administrator. I asked you politely to use the talk page and talk to the active editors there. You chose to decide that I had to be the one to respond to your long posts. Your revision of the past doesn't work because in case you forgot everything is still in history just like what you said to me that Diannaa asked you to remove. Now cut the crap already because I am sick of it. I am getting stronger everyday right now and I don't need what you are trying to pull because I am not a meek little mouse who will take it. I am usually a very polite and calm editor who gets along with most everyone. You and I can still get along if you start being honest about everything. But anyways, I have archived the two sections on my talk page now. Hopefully we can leave the past in the past and go on from there. I hope so, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Hi Doc! I hope you are doing well. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 22:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Glad you're back, Crohnie! @DeadSend4: I'm not really surprised at your response either. Are you willing to explain how you came to the conclusion that she was working on that article with others and not you when that was clearly not the case? There is absolutely no evidence of it. I'm not an admin either. I assume you have a job, and that you have co-workers that you like to work with as well as others that you do not like to work with. Usually when no one wants to work with someone at a job, that person gets "fired". You can move on and work with others since WP is such a huge place: but bad habits are hard to break. Break those habits; and you'll find that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crohnie, I know you can see the history and I'm sure you read it. How about you two move on? Thanks. DeadSend4 (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... you're the one who started all this, remember? You're the one who should be able to read their own block log and know who actually blocked you, right? Quit while you're behind. This is very possibly an issue of
competence. Doc talk 05:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not behind on anything and could care less what you think, again, move on. DeadSend4 (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can go around in circles DOCtor, but I'm not here for that. But if you want to test me, test me. DeadSend4 (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You fail the test. Big time. Doc talk 05:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc! I'm so happy you take the time to respond to all my comments, it's flattering. :) DeadSend4 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No point in responding much further. Leave her alone. Do you understand this? Doc talk 05:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comments keeps on coming! I'm loving the attention. DeadSend4 (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, are we posting links to different articles for fun?
This sounds fun but what is the point of this? Either way, it's touching you're spending time to respond to me. :) DeadSend4 (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Follow your own advice. You can't resist though, can you? Doc talk 07:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not so different, you and me BTW. One key difference is that you blame your victims simply because they disagree with your wiki-vision, whereas the users I "hunt" aren't victims to begin with and are usually guilty of unambiguous disruption and harassment. Enjoy your chuckles, you rebellious maverick you... Doc talk 07:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
was re the above 'discussion'. 114.79.56.101 (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never sure how to respond to you, really, as I've tried to extend the olive branch in the past. We've actually gotten along before: remember Peter Lawford? You won't see me attempting to hunt you down anymore, believe me. Good luck with your endeavors. Doc talk 07:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am dying of laughter here at how upset, pressed, bothered and probably crying at my edits. :) DeadSend4 (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maverick, I like that. Thanks again doll, muah! DeadSend4 (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doc please do me a favor and archive this. This editor is getting some kind of sick pleasure out of annoying others. The more things disappear the less attention. Remember
WP:BRD. I think this is a time when we should follow them to the letter. Let's please stop the trolling, I know it goes against what your usual policy is for your talk page but please make an exception this time for me, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Feel free to show this again. I am not going to take the abuse anymore if I can stop it. I hope to stop it soon. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointer...

...to this, which will be of interest to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BMK. If the editor returns as another IP within a month it won't be too hard to figure out who it is. Cheers... Doc talk 05:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

222...

Please comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice: the page is being
watched. Doc talk 03:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
See also [16] Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saw it - thanks. Doc talk 03:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I know you don't want me to do this but I have no choice. We will stay in touch though via email. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to say, really. I think back to a certain admin couple who used to staunchly support him and attack all that opposed him; they've now basically disappeared from the wiki, and their loyalty to his vision was apparently not enough to keep them around. Oh well. Why anyone would quit because of his mistreatment of others I can't understand, as it gives him what he wants. It sure as hell isn't going to happen with me, and he can continue to stalk my edits and those of others unpunished, I suppose. Send me an e-mail when you have the time, and good luck... Doc talk 16:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've thought about this for a few day now and decided you are right. Enough is enough and I'm not taking it anymore. I am not retiring, at least not yet. I have brought this situation to a higher place to see if if can be resolved. If I need to I will take it to AN/i and/or the arbitrators to get this to stop and to to get certain administrators to stop and pay attention. Thank you. I got quite a few emails too that I need to reply to about this telling me not to leave and why. I took what they had to say to heart too. I did send you an email, let me know if you got them or not. --CrohnieGalTalk 23:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on truckin' ;) Doc talk 04:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't get any e-mail, so re-send it. And no filing of any AN/I threads, please: it's a time-waster in this situation. Get well... Doc talk 06:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, no AN/i from me about this. It's a waste of time for this situation. See my email... --CrohnieGalTalk 12:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Baker

Your change sounds fine. It's not really Wiki allowed but I can personally "cite" the statement as I wrote the play and used information Tom passed on to me in conversation and notes as the basis of some of the story. Altcult101 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]



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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
ygm
}} template.

Merge discussion for Scott Peterson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Scott Peterson, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.  pablo 13:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me - good proposal. Doc talk 17:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SRQ & Dante8 Sockpuppet

I came across an article Dante8 created. I looked at her contributions and notice some odd patterns. On Dante8's talk page I saw a sockpuppet investigation. The user has created quite a few lesbian and rabbi articles.

Saw from the the above section you are working on Ted Bundy's talk page. When I was 1-2 years old, I lived across the street from Melissa Smith's family (Midvale, Utah). She was my babysitter. She also lived two houses down from my grandparents. Really sad story about the family. Her brother committed suicide. Father lost his police job and couldn't keep a job. Father died real early. Bgwhite (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, Bgwhite. Dante8 and SRQ do indeed have some very common interests, but there's really nothing behaviorally to tie them together. Unless something odd happens, Dante8 isn't being disruptive and is merely writing articles.
That's terrible what happened to Smith's family. Bundy created so many victims in all the families and friends of the girls that it's staggering. When Kimberly Leach's body was found, her mother said, "It's not much better now. It's never going to be good." Do you have a source, maybe a local newspaper article about the Smiths? Again, thanks for the note, and Cheers :> Doc talk 20:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also found your story about what the damage Bundy did to that family extremely sad. Thank you for sharing. It's mind numbing to think of what this monster did to so many innocent people. Thanks again, (Hi Doc!), --CrohnieGalTalk 13:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Bundy Peer Review

A peer review and a GAN review are two different beasts. While the article looks very good to me, I did not check things that I would have for GAN. I am calling it a night - let me think about your request tomorrow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - thanks for responding! Have a good night... Doc talk 04:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of you did a marvelous job with this article. I wish I could have been around to help. :( Hey, check your email. :) The article looks good though and I seriously think it could become FA with minimal work. Once I get my strength back, if no one else gets to it, I think I will return the media section with sources other than imdb.com. It shouldn't be hard to do and I know this is something that is needed at the article. As usual, I hope you are well, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to put the GA box on your page before I do. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 04:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I did it! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 13:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note, but same article, I set up MiszaBot since the talk page is huge. I've not set this up in a long, long time so when you get a moment would you take a peek and see if I missed something or did something in error? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - thanks for doing it! I got your e-mails and will get back soon. Have a great 4th weekend! Doc talk 20:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You enjoy the 4th weekend too, talk soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
You've always been there when I need it so this is just to say thank you for the help and support over the years. CrohnieGalTalk 13:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TY :> Doc talk 00:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Doc9871. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
chi?
11:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - responded. Doc talk 00:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I fail to see what part of do not discuss my family members you dont understand but please stop , thanks.

Off2riorob (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm just trying to show you the meaning of the expression. I told you my own mother is deceased, meaning I take offense whenever someone jokingly says, "Fuck your Mom." It happened last summer when a friend said it to me without knowing she was gone, and my blood boiled. I'm certainly not talking about your family members and never have. Just trying to help. Cheers, Rob... Doc talk 06:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gold1618

This may turn out to be nothing, but could you revisit the issue you raised on the talk page? I'm curious what this was about. Edits by this user have recently come to my attention. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Viriditas. I watch the Abe Vigoda page, and every once in a while some editors try to re-introduce this really crappy link on the page. This editor did it here, but it's mostly been done by IPs that seem unrelated.[17][18][19] Don't know this editor beyond the addition to the Vigoda page. Let me know if you need any help, and Cheers :> Doc talk 06:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping an eye out. I'm concerned about the accuracy of contributions by this editor. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some kid barely out of high school, all full of idealism. (I remember what that was like. Sigh) I doubt it's their only account, and they certainly haven't been active in awhile. Doc talk 10:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. :) Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
ygm}} template.

--CrohnieGalTalk 20:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Ted Bundy

To facilitate answering the items listed at the FA, I have copied the lists into my main sandbox. We are not allowed to tick off things or interweave our replies, so this is a good way to keep track of where we're at so far. Please go ahead and edit in the sandbox if you like. Regards, --Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - thank you very much for the note! I see you've already done the majority of the proposed changes, and I'll assist in any way I can with the rest. Thanks again for your excellent help with this article! Doc talk 04:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Doc9871. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yeah, we really need to have a centralised discussion about this. The two things we need to work out are, firstly, under which license these images are actually released, preferably replacing the "I reckon it's CC" template with one that says "This is from blah. Therefore, it is released in such a way." Secondly, however, we need to work out how the archive got these images, and so what right they have to release them. If they were all taken by employees of the State of Florida, that's fine (but that may actually make them PD anyway) but, if not, we'll need details. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact that not all of these images were necessarily taken by employees of the State of Florida. But it's "all or nothing": the entire archive must be shown to be unacceptable if even one image from it is. I'll start sending some e-mails. Cheers :> Doc talk 10:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this is from memory but some of the images were put there by Vidor. Some I believe were snagged off of Flickr (sp?) (rage photo I believe), and some from the state (mugshots). Also the images of the VW he used to own is from a museum that got started, don't remember the name of it but it's about serial killers and so forth. I'll help too if there is something you all need me to do. I've been around a bit here but just being a lurker to help with another article. They needed editors to kind of watch what was going on and to step in when things got a little too hot, that was what I was trying to help with. ;) So please let me know what I can do to help. Diannaa, I hope it's ok for me to use your sandbox too but I will ask you directly to be sure. It looks good everyone. I knew the images were going to be questioned again. You should also be able to find discussions about them and why they are acceptable for use too since there was an editor long ago that kept trying to get the images in a lot of article removed. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "rage" photo was Corbis and thus was deleted (F7: Violates non-free use policy: Non-free images or media from a commercial source [e.g., Associated Press, Getty], where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use). Several of the other Florida images are most definitely not ok, according to photo credits in Ann Rule (2000 edition). Sorry. Crohnie, I think all the items in the sandbox were already completed. In fact I am pretty sure all issues raised so far in the review were dealt with. --Diannaa (talk)
Yeah, I pretty much hate Corbis: using Bill Gates' limitless fortune to buy up every image on the planet so that they can lease the usage rights for even more money to put into his coffers. That's capitalism for you though, and it's the way it works. FWIW: the "rage" picture in Foreman 1992 (p.6) is credited to "AP/Wide World Photos, New York", so clearly Corbis bought up a lot of photos from them. Which of the "several" photos are going to be a problem now? Doc talk 03:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problematic images are listed at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images from the Florida Photographic Collection. The ones that apply to the Ted Bundy article have already been removed from the article. About what was expected. The one we formerly had in teh info box and the one where he's leaning against the wall are Bettman/Corbis for sure. All the victim photos are gone. I would like to provide the readers with a link to a good website about the victims; if anyone knows of one? How about this one? --Diannaa (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have *not* been removed from the article and they should not be until the situation at the Commons is resolved. I've already established that two different agencies "claim" copyright to the same image and charge for its use: they are not owned by the same company to my knowledge. I've also established that Florida mug shots are subject to being credited to one of the same agencies that lays claim to the infobox image, so the Florida PD thing wiki-wide isn't even so crystal clear. No one is going to die if we wait to see what happens at the Commons (and hopefully before then what the Florida Memory Project says about each specific image). We're going to slap a PD license on File:Ted Bundy mug shot.jpg and take it from the same place that we're trying to get rid of all the other images without knowing the full story? As you said: no deadline. Doc talk 04:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I was ranting and ignored the last part of your post. As far as that particular victim tribute site - the pictures are good but the writing is not the best. I'd pass, but of course it's not up to me. I certainly wouldn't fiercely oppose it, so see what the talk page thinks :> Cheers... Doc talk

Ok doing a search for 'Free images of Ted Bundy' comes up with this. There are a lot of images here but I'm not sure what we can do with them but it says they are free. Thoughts? --CrohnieGalTalk 18:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the dif above and there shouldn't be any problems with the images. These have all been discussed. The one of the victim needed removal I think because I believe it was a yearbook image though even with those copyright does run out, doesn't it? Most of these images are old, real old so I would think they would become public domain with time, am I wrong? The dif I provide is free images and we have quite a few of them that are on this dif. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They Rally 'Round the Family

[20]

With apologies to an excellent editor for the rip-off. It's pretty fitting in a few ways, though... ;> Doc talk 07:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

"God's benison go with you, and with those That would make good of bad, and friends of foes!" I am honored. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu editing

Excessive? I'm "editing" his page only to the extent that I am using

WP:TWINKLE to nominate articles for deletion that he created and his user talk redirects to his user page (as a product of having been banned.) Note that I am removing the notices most every time (some admins have beaten me to the punch a few times... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

It's best not to stir the pot: just some advice. As a banned user he really doesn't need to be notified of things like this. Doc talk 06:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know He's already sent me several harassing and offensive e-mails. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles has now full-protected the page. --Dianna (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top icons on top of one another

Friendly heads-up Your file mover and dab pages with links top icons are on top of one another (at least, on Firefox 5 running on Windows Vista.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Don't know how to fix it, but if you can I'd appreciate it! :> Doc talk 06:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note

Hey stranger, it's been awhile. I'm having troubles with my popups not working. If you have any ideas please email me. You can see what the problems are on my talk page. Remember you're talking to a computer idiot.  :) I've asked at

WP:POPUPS and Village pump (technical). Still waiting for something suggested to work.  :( Email me when you get time. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey! I'll send you an e-mail, but not much about popups: I'm pretty computer illiterate myself when it comes to certain things. Cheers :> Doc talk 22:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journey

Well, that was a funny one!

What this? Thanks - I just can't see him becoming the new lead singer -or- dominating the world. Cheers, Dave :> Doc talk 00:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

I've done as you asked. I've also replied on my page to your comment. -- Avanu (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

I have opened an AN/I notice on the conduct of

bot!) 06:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank You for TPSing.

The
WikiJaguar
Award for Excellence
For responding to comments on my talk page, thereby giving me more time to get ready for school rather than be mired in
bot!) 06:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the Jaguar! I wasn't a fan of that guy's rhetoric at all, and I saw where it was going with his quasi-legal threats and threats to write some blockbuster novel about WP. Considering he was plugging his books here: he probably needs a decent publicist. Cheers :> Doc talk 14:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"not truth" etc

Could you check your comment, "I would absolutely think that the context is the same". Was "context" the word that you wanted to use? Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I borrowed your term, but the second part of the statement only "spells out" (briefly) what is meant by "verifiability not truth". As Blueboar stated, the two statements are equivalent. Doc talk 20:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Doc9871. You have new messages at Egg Centric's talk page.
Message added 22:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Egg Centric 22:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi, just want you to know that I've not been too well but I will be in touch with you via email. I am not upset with you, how could I be?  :) I'll try to respond tomorrow. Take care, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny - I was literally just thinking about you! No rush, and tell me what's up in your e-mail. Doc talk 21:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I finally got that email out, only took four days, oh no you are rubbing off on me! :) Talk soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Robertson stamps

Not sure if you're aware, but Canada issued a special series of stamps featuring Canadian recording artists; one "package" features Robertson. Also featured in the same packet are Kate & Anna McGarrigle, Bruck Cockburn and Ginette Reno. The packet is issued with four different covers, one featuring each of the different artists. I happen to have come into a set with Robertson on the cover. Would you be interested in that for your collection? If so, ping me. Risker (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we could get a picture of the stamp for the article that would be excellent! Or did you mean the stamps themselves? ;> Sorry for the very late reply - I've had a lot of RL stuff going on. Doc talk 03:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've been busy too. I can probably scan the stamps (barring any further technical glitches, which have driven me mad in the last few days), but I'd be happy to send along the originals to you personally if you're interested. Risker (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler's religious views

That IP keeps adding their own analysis about Richard Carrier and won't discuss it. Mind taking a look at it? Maybe you can get them to engage in dialog. Falcon8765 (TALK) 20:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it for you; but he's adding referenced material, so it's a little complicated. He seems a little bristly, but his edits aren't disruptive that I can see. That article is a highly contested one in regards to NPOV: I watch it for vandalism mostly. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tell me why you removed my post

I wrote a small contribution on mescal in literature and you removed it. It was accurate in all it's information. You should not have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VICTORGIRAFFE (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was original research, and as such I had to remove it. The reference you provided(?) was not nearly enough to support your addition. Please see
WP:BURDEN. These are policies and guidelines we all must follow as editors here. Cheers :> Doc talk 08:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Incident on
Hitler's religious beliefs

As you know, an IP has been violating NPOV and the 3RR on

talk) 15:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Lennon/McCartney or Lennon–McCartney

Hi Doc! There is a discussion here where we could use your input. Thanks. CuriousEric 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - I responded there. Doc talk 10:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss me? :)

Hi there Doc, I haven't been here for a bit now. Needed to desperately take a break from some of the nonsense that was getting to me. It's been a nice break too. I am only going to be here briefly. Just thought I'd peek in to see how some are doing. Keep busy, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where the heck you been? I'm glad you're taking plenty of personal time, though. Great to hear from you before I hunted you down! Cheers :> Doc talk 05:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both my fav people! Love yas! Taking Wikibreaks here and there .My precious dog died and my despicable BIL too. I miss my Crohnie too! NOT missing u know who! More later! Out damned spot! luv — DocOfSoc • Talk • 20:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I miss you too - get in some more trouble so I can defend you, will ya? Here's one of the best lines, BTW... "There 's daggers in men's smiles." :> Doc talk 09:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doc 2, I hope you are well.  :) Hey you both know how to find me!  :) --CrohnieGalTalk 11:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't have to DO anything to get in trouble! Check this out:

== Mystified ==

May I ask why you put a warning about sock puppets on my page? I have been hassled by the queen of sox since day one here. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see no one informed you about the sockpuppet investigation case that was opened. Well, it was in response to that. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you believe this???? — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. What exactly is going on here? Doc talk 02:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's crazy-my response:
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. As I was not informed as required of the malarky before today, here is my response: I added the Mount Sinai link to patient info page on Ovarian Cancer so more women have the pertinent info and don't DIE like my sister did in February. Doc James and the other MD's have decided only "Journal" material may be added regardless of Wiki policy. He is apparently not happy with me as I was not happy when he casually stated that "Yes ovarian ca is a horrible disease and have seen many dye (sic) way before their time from it". SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ovarian_cancer. "Moved from my talk page." This is a silent disease and more info needs to be dispersed and MD's need to LISTEN to women. My sis was ignored by her doctor for a YEAR! I don't trust a doctor that can even spell DIE for heaven's sake! This young doc didn't even follow the policy that I should be informed of the ludicrous accusation and persisted in accusing me. I have no connection with NYdoc85 whatsoever (I live in LA BTW) and any accusations that it was my sockpuppet need to be removed. Any number of admins can vouch for me. I am Sick that as a PhD I didn't know the symptoms of this horrendous quiet killer when my sister complained to me. I have choice words for Doc James that are not printable. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a Bad faith accusation. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doc 2 your temper does not help in a situation like this, please keep calm. ;) I've commented at the sock accusations and on your talk page. This is one of the reasons I took a break from here. Doc1, Doc2 has been accused of being a sock of an account that has only 1 edit, that is putting a link in EL, on behavioral evidence. Yet there is no behavior to compare to since the account called NYdoc85 only added the EL and that was it. Nothing there to compare, so this accusation is BS in my humble opinion. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winston

No legal threat could possibly be implied; we are all trying to work within the scholarship framework of WP. Do not try to @up the ante' - it detracts from the purpose of the discussion212.121.214.102 (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who the heck are you? Doc talk 10:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably Pawelmichal editing logged off.
I looked a little at their editing history. In Pawelmichal's first edits he twice added "odious little bigot" to the lede of
Menachim Begin.[27][28] Pawelmichal seems to have added too much unsourced content to wikipedia (he writes "anorak" occasionally in his edit summaries, but everybody has to use sources, even for suburban trivia). In addition contentious negative material has been added about Coren, Winston, Begin and Mendel: it is not hard to pick out a common strand. [29] Mathsci (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It's a
May-fly. Who's now being watched. Doc talk 11:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks to you both. I encountered this user at the Winston article, and noticed the edit history, but you're following up more thoroughly....was hoping their POV violations would come to light. 99.170.155.102 (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the WMF doesn't already have a branch in Manchester, they need to. He's not a
hopeless case yet, but there is some serious learning that needs to happen on his part when it comes to what is fit for inclusion here. Doc talk 11:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Given this warning in July [30], a continued pattern of unsourced and defamatory edits and dismissive responses to other editors since, the time for learning may be viewed as done. Cheers, 99.170.155.102 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of anti-semitism in the Mendel chapter is nonsense, as it's borne out by the facts. Nothing I added to the articclePawelmichal (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tfd: Facepalm

Thanks. It's ironic to me in light of the deletion/restoration/TfD that an editor on the French wikipedia used the image and added his own (I think) caption of "Z’avez rien de mieux à faire ?"[31], which loosely translates to "Don't you have anything better to do?" Doc talk 20:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Edelman

Point taken. Translated sources will be include as soon as I have the timePawelmichal (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents page

One of the requirements to get me unblocked was that I had to retract my legal threats. The best way in my opinion to do this is to erase them. Also I don't appreciate how alot of people were talking about me freely without me being able to defend myself. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're unblocked, and now you can defend yourself wherever anyone talked about you. You retracted your legal threat, but blanking the thread at the AN/I board that you initiated is not part of retracting that threat. You have to leave it there. You must know how many editors are now watching your every edit because of that thread: I suggest you "smarten up" from here on in and edit like most productive editors do. Cheers. Doc talk 05:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re your comment

Just wanted to mention, as I can see where conflicting instructions could cause confusion ...

At User talk:Rainbowofpeace, you stated "... Now that you are unblocked, you are free to add to that thread ..." But, that thread has been collapsed and states at the top of the collapsed box "The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thumperward's collapsing of that thread would be wholly irrelevant if Rainbowofpeace actually wanted to respond there (now that they are unblocked) and address things that they were unable to respond to while they were blocked, as they complained about. I would happily unarchive it myself if that was their desire. Rainbowofpeace also cannot erase that thread, as they tried to do (only once, thankfully). Rainbowofpeace is no longer blocked, and is free to address anything that they felt was unfair concerning their "treatment" during their standard block. Much more whining about "protests" and "lawsuits" from this editor is not going to be tolerated - just a guess ;>. It's time to "put up or shut up" for this editor. Doc talk 05:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Saying hello cause I've seen you now on threads on Wesley's and PoD's talks. REM RIP, for sure; have you read [32]. As with all AV club articles only the comments are inciteful. Ceoil (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through R.E.M.'s whole catalog (yet again), and it's incredibly hard for me to find even one song through Monster that I don't love. That's every song on every album. One of my favorite little gems: Wendell Gee. Cheers :> Doc talk 23:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right through to Monster is nice and pointed ;) The two following were good, but more about sound than songs; after that, euf. Ceoil (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

If someone is seeing "only what they want to see" in a guideline then it is helpful to point this out to them, using carefully chosen words such as "seems" and "a little". You've been here long enough to know that off-discussion, personal comments should be made on user talk, not article talk; flouting this could (yes, could) be interpreted as disruptive. Uniplex (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've known CuriousEric for awhile, and I have never known him to be disruptive. He's not the most "consistently active" editor I've seen, but I hardly think he's in that discussion to mess things up. What off-discussion, personal comments are you referring to? Doc talk 06:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The one you made about choosing words carefully, inappropriately at article talk. Uniplex (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You chose a word that cast his motivations in a bad light: that's not assuming good faith in him as an editor. You should consider not commenting on another good-faith editor's contributions with terms such as that. Doc talk 06:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you fail to understand that the word "seems" indicates a possible interpretation, not an accusation, and that the major point of this discussion is your inappropriately placed comment. Uniplex (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we gonna play lawyer here? "Seems" is pretty neutral. "Could appear to some as" is neutral. "Disingenuous" is not neutral. You said, "Your interpretation of the MoS:... seems a little disingenuous." That means you are saying that he appears disingenuous to you. Next time, say something like, "You are possibly mistaken about your interpretation of the MoS." CuriousEric is a very easy-going editor, but many others (including myself) would take offense if our arguments were accused of "seeming disingenuous". And: any perceived personal attack can be brought up on the page it is issued. Are we good now? Doc talk 07:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody perceived an attack; my comment elicited an appropriate and helpful response in the context of the discussion. Per your advice, I shall remember to wear kid gloves in future discussion with you. Uniplex (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(chuckle) I've got skin as thick as a rhinoceros - and a memory like an elephant. You don't need to worry about me, but thanks for the consideration ;P Doc talk 09:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Doc! Thanks for your support at L/M. I try to keep a cool head where possible, no sense escalating things. CuriousEric 07:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noprob - see above. Sorry I didn't reply sooner - trolls have been very active recently, and I got a little distracted. Nobody's escalatin' nuttin' - relax, will ya? :> Doc talk 12:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relaxed... I didn't even see the above section until now, as it was very late in my timezone when I finished up last night. (-.-)Zzz CuriousEric 18:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor at 92.24.104.225

FYI I have blocked this IP address for 24 hours following the serial reversions of your edits. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I just tagged it.[33] The banned editor has been hitting the AN page like crazy, and I've been the only one reverting him. This was my third round of reverts[34][35] - if he hits it again, a semi might be needed. Cheers :> Doc talk 12:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (2)

I was perusing the talk page history of a user when I saw [36]. Thanks for your vote of confidence :-)

talk) 11:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

No problem! Doc talk 05:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's up, Doc?

:) –BuickCenturyDriver 11:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! No way is that an administrator, I gotta tell ya. Your AGF skills are enviable to a grizzled old coot like myself, but I can smell a troll from a long ways away. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is important to have if you want to be a good contributor to this site. If you have it you won't have the tendency to be suspicious when somthing doesn't go the way you'd expect. Of course we could suspect a hoax, but only after the accounts were verified. Now that we know the temp account really is a hoax, we no longer have to AGF the situation. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there were no trolls and the world was a perfect place, we could assume good faith in everyone all the time. Unfortunately, there are trolls, and I have a way of quickly knowing whether they are or not. It's my secret, though ;> I never would have made a statement as "conclusive" before any official results were in if my little hunch wasn't on: I don't want to look like an idiot, after all. Cheers, BuickCenturyDriver! Doc talk 03:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Sex and Gender

You recently put on my profile that I stated that my gender is "unfortunately male :(" now I want you to look over that again. I said that my sex is male not my gender. I think it is important that you study the difference between sex and gender very carefully before making statements like that which could offend someone. My gender on my profile clearly says Genderqueer. I will give you a few days to respond before I delete your comment from my talk page. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put anything on your "profile". You said you were "unfortunately male". I have a very low tolerance for these sorts of antics: you're poking the wrong bear. Trust me. Doc talk 22:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said under sex that I was "unfortunately male :(" sex is what you are physically. Gender is a completely different thing. I think it is important for you to know this because of the fact that there are many transgender and genderqueer wikipedians. Always refering to someone by their sex is problematic and leads to insults on the part of people who have a gender that dosn't match their sex. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem or issue with transgender or genderqueer people in my own experience IRL, but that's besides the point, as I am just one person. Two important things: 1) There is no discrimination against, or obstacles to, transgender or genderqueer editors contributing here, and there is no proof that there is. 2) You cannot expect me (or, most importantly, just about every editor) to walk on eggshells pondering which pronouns to assume to know to use based on sex/gender ambiguity without potentially offending someone. I'll note that when an editor referred to you as "he" twice last December, you didn't chastise them, or even respond to it, creating the next three threads on that page with no mention of it. Please edit responsibly! Cheers... Doc talk 06:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite frankly tired of your sexism and if you do it again by stating that I said my sex is "unfortunately male :(" which I havn't as of yet denied. Even when I explained that sex and gender are two different things. I am giving you a fair warning if you want to demonize me for my sockpuppet or my legal threat fine. I'm pretty sure there is something in the wikipedia rules about forgiveness or assuming good faith but whatever my point is that I'm getting tired of your sexist and transphobic harassment. You have been warned for the last time. And yes reminding a transgender/genderqueer person constantly of their physical or birth sex is harassment. I have tried to be kind but you are not getting it. This is part of the discrimination I've been talking about.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbowofpeace - We do indeed have a policy about
no personal attacks will come into play if you keep accusing another editor of being "sexist" and "transphobic" without good evidence to support it, which, frankly, you do not have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks, BMK. I'm somewhat surprised that Rainbowofpeace now admits to being the operator of the sockpuppet, because before it was quite vehemently denied with the excuse that it was Rainbowofpeace's "best friend" on the "same computer", and HelloAnnyong was roundly chastised for "being a dictator" for the accusation which, it turns out, was correct after all. Doc talk 23:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already admitted to it. It however was not a sockpuppet but a meatpuppet and I have already owned up to it. You on the other hand are not owning up to continuously refering to me by improper words even after a warning. I assuming you wouldn't call a Muslim a Christian or a Jew. On a similar not I wouldn't call you a Democrat knowing full well you are a Republican. I had no choice what my birth sex is. If I did it would be very different. You have no choice what religion you are raised but you do have a choice of how you practice. The main difference is that religion and politics pure choice whereas my gender is something that I have tried to kill myself several times over because I wish to change it. However I have learned to accept it now. And demand that it be respected.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you have tried to kill yourself several times over: that's unfortunate, and I do mean it. However, Wikipedia is
WP:NOTTHERAPY, and if you choose to disclose these things on your own accord - it's also unfortunate for you if you are reminded of those things that you disclosed freely here. Anything you post here you are responsible for. Doc talk 07:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I absolutely agree. However I'm not responsible for your lack of knowledge on the issues of the difference between sex and gender. There are many biological women who are men and vice versa. There are also people who are biologically or psychologically both, neither or in the case of psychology genderfluid. I don't even expect you to agree with my gender. Hell, go ahead and throw an anti-LGBT rally. Thats none of my business. However while you are on here you must respect my gender in the same way I must respect your political party. I don't agree with it but I will never attack you for it or harass you over it. Now I hope that this conversation is over because I want to end this childish battle and return to editing wikipedia like civil adults. What do you say? -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never harassed you for anything you can't change, or otherwise believe: your sex, gender, ethnicity, eye color, political views, favorite color, etc. I have never "harassed" you about anything. What I have done is "called" you on some of your editing behavior: which you can change. The only reason we're here right now is because, for some reason, you decided after 13 days of not editing to come to my page with your grievance. Again, I have not harassed you, and I encourage you to just edit without conflict from here on in. Cheers... Doc talk 07:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Shawcrossarthur.jpg

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
).

PLEASE NOTE:


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed, as the image was never orphaned (removed from the article). Doc talk 02:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CEDU

Contact me via email. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 04:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Doc talk 05:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi stranger!

I don't want you to worry so check out my talk page so I don't have to type it all out again. You know another way of talking to me too, so check it out. Talk to you soon I hope. CrohnieGalTalk 16:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There you are! Very glad you're still around - I'll catch up with you by e-mail! Cheers :> Doc talk 10:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whew

Hi again. I sure am glad that you are logged on. I was starting to feel like a salmon swimming upstream against a torrent of bad editing. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - no doubt you've spotted our vandal yet again. I guess he figures if he keeps hitting the same targets like Jim Cummings that he cannot be discovered. A brilliant strategy ;P Doc talk 21:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Nighy is another fave target though I don't think Bill ever did anything to him to deserve such treatment :-) MarnetteD | Talk 21:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted a longish reply over on RFC

I hope that helps. I have a personal stake in a clear policy on verifiability. It is important to me that the current situation be resolved. There is a tremendous conflict between any LGBT editor and those christians who use any policy loophole they can find to corrupt any neutral LGBT article. I was happy to be an IP editor for quite some time until the position became untenable. Not for me, I am capable of fighting a virtual battle for however long it might take. The time which a fair admin. and the LGBT project editors were investing because of the attacks was just too high a price to ask others to pay. I took a user name, the attacks became focused on the subject at hand and the admin and all those editors were free to go back to actually writing and editing. As this is still quite recent, it left me with a profoundly bad taste in my mouth regarding policy violations towards IP accounts. Either we go the route of German Wikipedia (which I have never participated in) or we have IP freedom. Hope that helps - I can see that this has turned into quite a battle and that's one reason I'm taking some time off from the RFC. Goodness. Thanks for your efforts, I've still got a lot to learn.Pauci leones (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good - I used to have a "mandatory IP registration" userbox on my page, but removed it after being brought out of my ignorant beliefs on that subject. I support IP freedom for sure, but am certainly aware of (and a little jaded by) how that freedom is abused by those who seek to edit here despite bans and blocks. I can't comment on any specific editing group or viewpoint that you may have experienced, but I understand the conflicts on WP are just a mirror of those in RL. Far-right-wing conservative Republicans see the world differently than far-left liberal Democrats, etc. Good luck, and thanks for the explanation! Doc talk 23:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it I think

Hi again. It looks like I fixed it [37]. Know I don't know all the ins and outs of how tables work but I do know that if there is more than one film/TV entry for a given year then you will see this

rowspan="8"| 2000

which means that there are 8 shows that he performed for in 2000. As you can see when you pulled out one of the fake entries that changed the number of items for that year from 9 to 8 and that is what threw the table out of whack. Next, I dug into the edit history to find when the changes happened and got to here [38] so the little devil messed things up more than 4 weeks ago. I haven't had time to check all the entries for that night to see if there is other items that need to be fixed but I will work on it. If this happens again and I am away from editing for a few days I'm sure that you can leave a message at the filmprojects talk page and someone will get it fixed. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome - thanks! One of the worst things is how sneaky he is: I just removed a bunch of fake credits from one of his favorite obsessions, and same with another favorite target. This guy is such a complete pain in the ass... Doc talk 22:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IU got all of the Oct 10 entries fixed except this table here Tom Kenny#Filmography which is totally messed up. The two bogus entries that need to be removed are "Recess: School's Out in 2001" and "Teen Titans: Trouble in Tokyo" in 2004. The table is also messed up below that and its beyond me. Either someone from the film project of maybe the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation project can figure out what is needed. Another option might be to revert back to Oct 9th and lose any good entries that might have been made. It might help to alert the members of the animation project to this jerk's M.O. so that they can keep there eyes peeled too. I gotta log off for a while so hang in there despite this nonsense. MarnetteD | Talk 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh - that table's a mess, alright. I'll see if I can find someone to address it, but what a nightmare. Doc talk 22:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fixed for now. Learn by doing :> Doc talk 04:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: it gets worse as a new range has popped up. I just caught 67.246.149.163 (talk · contribs) doing this. Not sure whether to add it or not - I can't see it not being him, however. Doc talk 00:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is NY although a different part of the state. Sock or meat puppet this is reaching the level of Bambifan101 or Grawp. Very frustrating. I'll keep my eyes peeled though I do wish that there was more that could be done. Enjoy the rest of your week anyway. MarnetteD | Talk 01:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added it. You enjoy your time away from the wiki: rest assured I'm on the case with this "little devil" (I like that description :>). I've reached out to another editor who has dealt with the vandal to pool resources as well. I also firmly agree that this is approaching (if not equal to) the level of egregiousness of the banned editors you mentioned. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the link where you fixed that table. great job cause you even got rid of the extra blank column that was on the right hand side. I always have to hunt for a stray straight line or hyphen somewhere and if I can't find it - well its like a burr under the saddle. Thanks for the wishes, I should still be here daily but editin can get limited if something comes up for the holidays or with family at this time of year. I know you can find others to help as needed. As ever cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 05:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

Howdy Doc. Wowsers, I can't remember those discussions. GoodDay (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You usually called for a CU of everyone involved - just to be safe. Doc talk 07:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's gotta be some time ago. GoodDay (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes:
Triton Rocker (talk · contribs) would be around that time that I first encountered the BI fun-fest :> Doc talk 07:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Back in the USSR/Beatles for Sale/etc

Hi Doc. Check out this doozy one of the IP addresses sent me.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"From Russia With Love"? Heheee ;> Doc talk 02:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

This image will survive the deletion nomination - if I had to bet on it. You're only doing a job in good faith, and you should be commended on that. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How NOT To Act Like An Admin

[39] Per request. Perhaps it's actually time to discuss how an admin can personally attack an editor in good standing; and then refuse to talk to them on their own talk page when asked about it. Admins are supposed to be our "ambassadors". Fat chance. If this is how newbies are treated when veteran editors are childishly dismissed like this: good luck. Brilliant... Doc talk 15:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You seem to get a kick out of following me around and casting suspicion on me. It's childish, but since I have children I have learned to forgive such behavior. But have you taken your grief to the admin who referred, on WH's talk page, to your trolling on WH's talk page as trolling? Or is this just a personal vendetta against me? Drmies (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you know (since you call me a troll) I tend to comment on AN/I. That's not following you around. I find it absurd that you can issue several personal attacks at another user, not even offer to retract those baseless attacks, boot them off your talk page as if they were a vandal... and then have the stones to preach to others at AN/I about personal attacks. You think I'm not going to comment there? Or at Malleus's page, where you followed me to? I have no vendetta. Do the right thing and retract your nasty insults. It won't change the fact that you made them, but perhaps I won't point out certain glaring "discrepancies" like this in the future. Doc talk 06:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as "the admin who referred, on WH's talk page, to your trolling on WH's talk page as trolling"... that is you and you alone. What other admin are you talking about? Look at the history and show me. Please provide a
      WP:DIFF to help me understand, because I'm not seeing it.  Done. Doc talk 06:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]

93.81.10.71

That would be the Beatles guy that I've talked about on ANI. There's no use blocking him, as he's an IP-hopper. The best bet at this point is to semi-protect all the Beatles songs and thwart his copyright-violating efforts. One editor has also suggested an edit filter, which would take the place of that semi-protection. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's a peach, that Russian. IP-hopping I am really not a fan of, especially when others use it like this joker does, sullying the reputation for the majority of actual good IP editors. I know the difference usually, but I still get jaded by people like this. Cheers, Bugs :> Doc talk 09:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"All he is saying is 'Give peach a chance'." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaaha! You are definitely on your game right now - I laughed out loud, and it's not easy to do that to me. Very nice ;) Doc talk 09:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks. You're probably better off not checking out the idea I came up with at ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Back in the U.S. and A.", maybe? Doc talk 09:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lesson he can't seem to get through his thick Muscovite skull is, "We've told you before, You Can't Do That." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, so many phrases of the "double entendre" variety in this situation. Doc talk 09:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can dig it, and I'm so tired, so tell me why I feel fine. I should have known better, but it's getting better all the time, yes it is. Do you want to know a secret? Any time at all we could come together with an entire helter-skelter essay built on chains of Beatles song titles. But it's been a hard day's night across the universe, here, there and everywhere, and I'm getting nowhere, man; but it won't be long; here comes the sun, so I'll just let it be. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I counted 19 different songs (yes, I got "Chains" too - very clever :>). Most impressive, as always - did I miss one? Doc talk 10:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yoghurt

Notice that I cleared my talk page because I knew that there would be some comments. Six months is the usual wait time between RM requests, otherwise we have little stability. --

talk) 08:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I disagree. Duly noted. Doc talk 08:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the rest of the sentence "BUT.....
I closed it not because of the arguments, presented in the debate, but for the reason I gave in the first couple sentences. Be very careful that you do not stray away from assuming good faith. --
talk) 08:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not assuming bad faith in you at all, believe me. This is in no way an attack on your character: but we all make editing "mishaps" from time to time. This debate (on the talk page of the article, not disrupting anything else, hopefully) was actually starting to get somewhere, it seemed. And then... WHAM!!! A six-month moratorium was imposed. Why? I do not understand it, and I came onto this debate late. But it will be solved. Better now than later, I always say. Much respect, and sorry if I irked you :) Doc talk 09:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Song lists

Howdy stranger (and the only other person who gets quoted on my userpage! I have started an appraisal of lists by subject at User:Richhoncho/Song lists. Perhaps you would like to read, amend or add. If you want to comment, perhaps better on either my or your talkpage. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a look - Cheers :> Doc talk 20:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for it. Eliminating ludicrous categorizing like this is a noble effort, and I support it. "Bridge Over Troubled Water" is literally about a bridge? What bridge? You've convinced me ;> Doc talk 01:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Surreal Barnstar
For the first ever talkpage reference to one of my edits being

crap. (and I really really hope you can see the humor in this) Crazynas t 22:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I... guess I do. Cheers :> Doc talk 22:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joy!

Re your link

Joy!
, I present you with the first ever Barncat: frameless
Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Space Madness is my all-time favorite, but there's many other gems. Cheers :> Doc talk 14:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers to both of you for the smile I have on my face after seeing this. "Happy Happy Joy Joy" has to rank up there with "Kill the rabbit" and "The Rabbit of Seville" as among the greatest cartoon songs ever written. :-) MarnetteD | Talk 03:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free
files in your user space

Hey there Doc9871, thank you for your contributions! I am a

not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Doc9871
.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but...

...there's no need to "welcome (me) to Wikipedia"; I've been here for awhile now. The "South Detroit" thing is common knowledge. I don't understand why it keeps getting deleted. Is being an Admin that boring? RMc (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. If the south Detroit thing is such common knowledge (especially the way you are writing it, which is not very encyclopedic), I'm sure there's a reliable source out there somewhere that can back it up, right? A blog is not a reliable source. I'm also not the only one who has deleted this, and I note that it has been attempted many, many times in the past. Here's the thing: this site has rules that we have to obey in order for our edits to stand. I didn't make up those rules, but I obey them and enforce them so that the encyclopedia can be of better quality. It may be an uphill battle, but it's better than complete chaos. I have linked
WP:Source for you several times, and if you read them you will understand why your entry keeps getting removed by myself and others. Find a source for it if you want it in the article. Cheers... Doc talk 14:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
"Do you understand why we need to do this?"
"Because Wikipedia is filled with smug, know-it-all would-be hipsters?" DING! We have a winner! (Now, go play in traffic, junior.)RMc (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you have been at this for a very, very long time, haven't you?[40] I would think you would understand what "original research" means after all this time, but
apparently not. This will be a long report to prepare... (sigh) Doc talk 15:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sure you have plenty of time to "prepare reports", Doc. The rest of us have lives. (Now, step away from Daddy's computer and a take a time-out, mmmkay?) RMc (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although the editor is unacceptably rude, he may have a point -- I just did a bunch of Googling, and was unable to find any reference to "South Detroit" in connection with either the city or the Metro area.. That strikes me as very odd, if it were a real neighborhood or area name, even an informal one. Unfortunately, it's difficult to prove a negative, and I'm not certain that the mistake is widespread enough for anyone to bother writing "There is no 'South Detroit' in Detroit" in a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that the spirit that there is no South Detroit to speak of is probably correct, but it's unfortunately not just that issue. This editor insists on their version alone, and part of the addition always includes the weasel-worded bit about "Downriver". Even when others have built on the original research before someone catches it and removes it, this editor will only accept their version.[41] It's been removed by several different editors in the past, and they always just pop it back in with no discussion or refs. If someone can find a reference, that would be great; though I would bet that this editor would still alter it to their preferred version, possibly ruining the reference. We'll see what happens when they come back - looking at the edit history, the editor seems fairly prolific and helpful. Doc talk 05:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've just found a perfectly acceptable source to include something along the lines of what RMc wants. This source comments directly on the situation, with a quote from song co-writer Steve Perry:

  • "He only found out later there is no such place as the "south Detroit" he sings about —that south of the U.S. city is the Ontario city of Windsor.
"I tried north Detroit, I tried east and west and it didn't sing, but south Detroit sounded so beautiful. I loved the way it sounded, only to find out later it's actually Canada," Perry said.

So that solves the mystery for me. Whether Detroiters simply call the area "Downriver"... that's certainly a different story. Doc talk 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rats (and yes Mr Welker - no doubt - did their voices also)

Thanks for you note about the new assault on FW's pages. I think that I saw one of these go into his regular article but I was busy checking something else and forgot to go back to it. I just realized that I don't have his filmography page on my watchlist so I have added it in an attempt to help you keep up with these pests. Have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 03:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! I still have to go through large sections of the filmography article, but I cleared a ton of garbage out of there already and will be watching it diligently. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. It is interesting when someone you contact over the web responds so forthrightly. Lets see uploading pictures causing a problem on Wikipedia - hmmmm - where have I heard that before :-) Hope you holiday season is going well !! MarnetteD | Talk 01:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tis the season

MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11
}} to your friends' talk pages.

Many thanks for all your work here at WikiP - especially in tracking down those pesky voice cast vandals - I hope that you have a great 2012. MarnetteD | Talk 22:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hope you have a great one too. "Festivus" - hahaa! Cheers :> Doc talk 23:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Oliverson

Why is she listed on California missing persons database? Well, California defines a missing person as "anyone whose whereabouts is unknown to the reporting party" -- meaning, I suppose, that they accept any missing persons report from anywhere. And that makes sense -- if I had a missing relative, God forbid, I'd put him/her on every missing persons database I could find, anywhere, since he/she could have gone anywhere; and California would be high on my priority list, since lots of lost souls gravitate to the Golden State.

Why isn't she on a similar list in Colorado? I suspect (but don't know for sure) that Colorado closed the case on her when Bundy confessed to killing her. In their eyes she's no longer missing. Why would other databases (such as California's) still list her? Either poor list maintenance, or requests from family that her listing be preserved on the slim chance that Bundy was lying or mistook her for someone else. I'm sure somebody still holds out hope that she could turn up one day. It does happen, e.g. the recently-found Gacy "victims." Cheers, DoctorJoeE talk to me! 20:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was very strange as well. I assumed it was a Colorado site at first, then was surprised when I went to the site's homepage. I'm still irritated that the Vermont State Police took the Rita Curran thing off their site and have yet to return it (if they ever will). Colorado does have something, however,: I'll have to add this for sure. It certainly lists her as a homicide instead of a missing person, and is probably better than the California one. The Doe network ref was not the best in that case. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I switched it for the Colorado one. We can always add the California one as well, but the Colorado one seems more appropriate and slightly less confusing. Doc talk 21:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! DoctorJoeE talk to me! 21:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I found this little gem from the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (in conjunction with AP) and am thinking about adding a small blip or two from it. The other source also mentions that only her bicycle and shoes were found, and there's a lot of DNA stuff there that can possibly back up other parts in the article. As you know, I'd like this to be the most well-referenced article around, and at 333 refs and counting, there's no reason to stop researching. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more thing... I just used the same CBI site to look up Shelley K. Robertson, who is very difficult to find anything about except what's in Rule. This is where it gets confusing. This is what it says. It has to be the same girl: same exact date given for her going missing, same age (well, she would be just shy of 24 if my math is right). However, they spell her first name without the extra "e", and oddly classify her at the top as "missing", yet give her date of death as the day she disappeared. Georgetown, Colorado is close to Golden, where Rule says she worked. Id' like to expand her entry - what do you think of this strangeness? No mention of her body being found at all in a very official source. Doc talk 22:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Apologies for butting in but this conversation sent me looking and learning through the Bundy's article. Though I was in high school I remember much of the coverage of these events. Two things I would like to add that may - or may not - be of help. Georgetown is a little under 40 miles from Golden if you take the main route along I-70. There is a windier route that adds a few miles and was in use back in 74 as you had to backtrack a bit to get to the I-70 exit from Golden (which is no longer the case). There is a lot of elevation gain and the trip today can take about 45 minutes - it might have taken longer back then as the speed limit was 55mph. As to the case file that you found I would say that the transfer of data from written files to computers often has spelling errors and other anomalies. Having done govt work I don't mean this is a disparaging way but data entry like this can be mind numbing and attention to detail can be a hallmark of some workers but not others. Also the errors might have been in the original paperwork. As I say none of this may be of help or answer your questions but I thought I would leave it on the off chance. MarnetteD | Talk 23:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize - talk page stalkers like you are always welcome :> It's the same girl, and Bundy would have no problem driving out of his way to conduct his nefarious deeds: the problem is how to address the discrepancies between the sources (even small details like having no "e" in her name). While I have all the respect in the world for Rule, the CBI is about as official as one can get as a source. They've got an entry on Melanie Cooley and Julie Cunningham as well. Cunningham's murder I believe Bundy confessed to, but her case is listed as open (and no mention of Bundy like in the Oliverson entry). It'll all get sorted out. Cheers :> Doc talk 23:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)


Thanks, Buster7! Happy Holidays! Doc talk 21:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hey buddy :-) Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 06:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, and Happy Holidays :> Doc talk 08:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A year end visit (possibly) by our VCV

Hi and Happy New Year Doc. Thought you should be aware of this editor who popped up today Pizzaking27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). May not be our usual VCV but looks like a variation using a UK program rather than US ones. Hope you have a great 2012 on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 15:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that one is him, and they seem to have been pretty quiet recently. Aside from the guy you mention, there are several people out there who get their kicks from this sort of thing. There's the Welker vandal in Gainesville, of course, and there have been others that don't seem related to the VCV. Take 68.43.27.4 (talk · contribs), for instance. This one seemed to have had a particular obsession with Glenn Shadix and was busy inserting false credits a while back; but now they seem to have cleaned up their act with factual additions.[42] Who knows what the new year will bring? Have a good New Year as well, MarnetteD! Doc talk 00:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one is too funny. Look at the info put in the infobox here [43]. I have visions of Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne being replaced by the "married" couple from this bogus infobox. You are tracking so many of these that I am not even aware of - if you ever want me to add some articles to my watchlist just leave me a message and I will be happy to do so. MarnetteD | Talk 02:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to be diversifying into Infoboxes, indeed. "Jinxety, Canada"? No such place exists, except for perhaps inside this twisted character's mind. This IP reminds me of 75.203.235.218 (talk · contribs), and they are both Verizon Wireless IPs. While this IP seems to have added credits to Recess: School's Out that actually appear to be correct as least as far as IMDB is concerned[44] (cross-referenced over there and everything, much to my amazement), they have also added 100% false credits with a familiar "ring" to them (Alec Baldwin and Meryl Streep, for instance). One thing's for sure: I spoke too soon about him being quiet recently. Thanks for the help as always, and I'll let you know if there are some pages to watch. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - I don't even know what to do with this mess of an article: WordWorld. A reading of the "cast" (which is not cross-referenced on IMDB at all) will show some very familiar victims. Sections like this... major facepalm. This is not encouraging. Doc talk 07:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh!! Do we have a top of the page template stating that a reader should approach every line in an article with the biggest grain of salt possible? If
WP:BOB was its own Wiki this (these) editor(s) woould have a perfect place to mess around and leave us alone :-) MarnetteD | Talk 15:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm going to do something about that particular article, actually - probably leave it as a bomb-cratered smoking hole considering the abundance of unverifiable OR. I saw you added 75.203.164.42 (talk · contribs) to the list: pretty similar to the Verizon IP listed just above, no? Oh, what a clever little IP-hopper, switching to his cell phone! We will end his charade one way or another... Doc talk 05:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jim Morrisonsinging.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Lovable Wolf (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

(Sigh). Doc talk 23:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW... really?! I mean, really?! Two non-free images of the same group of fruits on the same page, and this Morrison image is a problem? (Shudder)... Doc talk 04:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

When shall we three meet again. In thunder, lightning, or in rain ... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 13:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I come, Graymalkin!" When I read "scathing" in the report, I thought you might have gotten "red-headed" with them a little bit. Hardly! I hope you're new year is going well besides this minor unpleasantness, and I'll be watching this one. Cheers :> Doc talk 13:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO! Happy New year too. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mortgageloan.com link

I removed your editat

Mortgage loan in case you want to discuss. Flowanda | Talk 06:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Among others, I see. What you probably think this is would be
WP:CITESPAM: however, "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." This is an information-only website with syndicated content published by other reliable sources (like, e.g., state governments), and because WP uses nofollow links there is no concern about search engine optimization for "spamming". These cites were added to back up otherwise unreferenced material in the articles: and they very likely will be legitimately returned. Doc talk 06:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Among many, many others. Have at me all you want and quote whatever you want.
WP:EL. You get to prove that they do. Flowanda | Talk 07:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't add any reference to this, this, this, etc. Apparently some others also see that the site is a reliable source. I get to prove it, eh? Cool. I always love a challenge. Doc talk 07:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No challenge when I was the first to welcome them to Wikipedia. Flowanda | Talk 09:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're being cryptic... okay, then. If you've being sarcastic and suggesting that because I wrote the MortgageLoan article there's a COI or something by introducing the site to WP (thus "notability"), that is not correct. This, the first edit that sent you removing all traces of this informational website as non-notable, was added at the article's creation in 2008. This next removal was inserted back in 2007, as well as this edit to that article which you removed. All inserted by different editors, and I assure you none of them was me. Then you come to me and tell me that the citations (not external links) I added to two articles last year from the glossary of the allegedly non-notable site are "spamming". Nice. Doc talk 10:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All My Loving

You may want to contribute to a discussion on this article's talk page - your views, either way, would be appreciated.--Patthedog (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say something, thanks for reminding me :> Doc talk 10:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tired

Hi ya Doc #1! I am editing only a few articles because I am simply tired of the same things our mutual friend is, not to mention being surreptitiously and unfairly accused of being a sockpuppet. (TY for your input) In three of the few articles I am editing I have been followed by an editor who had not edited the articles before I did. He is insulting and archaic. Suggestions? it's not a bunch of articles but it is a lot when it is the very few you are doing! Respectfully, — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Relatively new account, the subjects of the first edits are interesting.[45] - this one's a killer. Followed you with massive rewrites here here and here. Tries to get you in trouble for edit-warring. Why is something striking about this giving me déjà vu? Time to do some research - I'll get back to ya... ;> Doc talk 11:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The sig is almost an homage to one of our friend's favorite admins' signature, actually an exact copy; but I won't say which admin... Doc talk 11:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are your usual insightful self for which I am eternally grateful. TYTY. Make that 4, add Ovarian Cancer to the above list. You are GOOD! :-D

''The grisly parade of the spectre years trooped through his brain." — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes: I see it. Inserting themselves on that page for the very first time to remove a link you had been fighting to include - how kind of them to notice. Doc talk 11:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Report filed - I've seen more than enough to be convinced. Doc talk 13:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To spare the "report bloat" at the SPI, I'll point out that very recent edits to yet another little-known article hardly weaken the case. Doc talk 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is a clever one. Ignoring did no good. I should have known! There are more hidden away I am sure. The LesHB is still at it. Isn't "Les" a bit obvious?00:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

She cannot seem to control herself when stalking you (especially) or others; and the same vile attitude, preachy and condescending tone and complete lack of understanding of basic policy (esp. EW) has not gone away. This is edit-warring to SRQ: she will make a change (Bold), someone reverts it (Revert) - now it's time to (Discuss), right? Wrong. In SRQ's world, it's (BRR), then she demands that the other party discuss why they reverted her. I just can't believe she had this account for so long before it became so glaringly obvious who it was. Cheers :> Doc talk 01:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know I should have hollered sooner, but I was depressed and figgered i would just let her hang herself until I was ready for a fray. She is so desperate, I feel sorry for her, really! And I am REALLY sorry she chose me as her obsession. She must have gone off her meds for the

Aspergers, most of whom just have a mean streak. Did ya get my e-mail? — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Got it - check your e-mail :> Doc talk 05:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet report

Very nice work compiling the evidence on Lhb1239. I had a prolonged, unpleasant dispute with him a few months ago at Talk:Pan Am (TV series)/Archive 1. I found it intriguing that he seems to spend many hours every single day editing Wikipedia, with the vast majority of his work in article space being good, constructive contributions, while his activity on talk pages or noticeboards is often uncooperative and obnoxious. He certainly hasn't been shy about levelling express or implied accusations of sockpuppetry against others which in retrospect seem a bit ironic (e.g. express, implied). —Mathew5000 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the banned editor SRQ - I would bet my life on it. And it's a "she", despite what she has told you and others. Sorry you had to deal with so much unpleasantness from her, but that's what she's about (hence the ban). Stalking, reverting, preaching bad sermons, spouting toxic venom... I've seen it all too many times before. Cheers, Mathew5000 :> Doc talk 05:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Darling! Nothing to forgive! That was a big DUH! on my part. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was better than just straight-up reverting you. I even almost entirely rewrote your comments, too, for clarity and grammar and all that jazz. (Cough). Now: how long will it take to close the SPI? I'm not holding my breath, as we are dealing with admins, after all ;> Have a good day! Doc talk 12:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Clarity and grammar" Moi? SRQ actually made some good edits in that regard, so why should you refrain? Just not "Completely" , OK? Permission granted forthwith. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 13:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to other, non-banned members of the community to decide whether or not any edits you make to an article or talk page need "refactoring". The haunting from the Lhb1239 account of you is over; but we both know that it probably will never end from this user. When they slip up with stalking you, making that critical error they cannot resist, I will zap 'em with incontrovertible evidence. If she just reverts vandalism or edits "local history" articles, there's no harm and no foul. But interacting with others in a truly collegial manner creates special problems that SRQ cannot overcome. Doc talk 13:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree, that's one of the reasons I let it go for so long. Too bad, so sad. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 13:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Jimbo for BMK still being around! Crohnie doesn't edit much anymore, Sarek is currently blocked (and defrocked, sadly), Equazcion and Dayewalker seem to edit more and more rarely... who else is left that can identify her unmistakable behavior from the old days? It's just you and me now, kid ;> Doc talk 13:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar it is much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 19:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! BTW, I just found one of the earliest VCV IPs I've seen yet: behold 98.204.242.5 (talk · contribs). Goes back quite a ways, and clearly has a major Frank Welker obsession. Very sad, IMHO... Doc talk 03:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before I forget (and so I can list them somewhere for myself), there are a whopping 13 of these "Land Before Time" movies, and Welker was only in four of them: numbers 3, 4, 11 and 12. He isn't credited with multiple roles like this moron tries to keep inserting in those films, either. And he was never in anything having to do with the Jurassic Park franchise, of course. "Dinosaur vocal effects"? Nonsense. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VCV?

User:71.146.89.75? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like him, but I see why the Yu-Gi-Oh! and 101 Dalmatians edits raised your eyebrows. They were active today, but seem to have dried up until the next round. Thanks for watching! Doc talk 09:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just couldn't decode whether their edits were reasonable or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply from User talk:MathewTownsend

I replied on my talkpage:example of reports he filed against be and numerous warnings on my talk page That was only part of his harassment of me. I didn't know what was going on, or what I did to earn his hate. What should I do in the future if this happens again? Thanks so much for figuring it out. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Do you know why he picked me to harass? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar! First things first: we're dealing with a she, not a he. What did you do to earn her hate? You disagreed with her, of course! Silly! I don't know why she picks on certain editors to stalk vs. others, but once she latches onto you, it could be a bumpy ride. She took a "shine" to you, obviously. To answer your other questions from your talk page: yes, she will return, but who knows if you've pissed her off enough to resume stalking you. She's stalked the editor that led to her being revealed as SRQ for several years, so there's no way of knowing for sure. What should you do in the future if you suspect a new account that pops up to harass you is actually her? Give me a shout. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you so much for figuring out the sockpuppet thing, so that I don't have to live in fear! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Civility

Doc I suggest you read

WP:CIVIL because your last comment "I would not add this again if I were you..." came across as a threat to me. I would hate to have to report you for in appropriate behavior and have your account suspended. Have a nice day. 74.132.152.205 (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

(Sigh) You can add if you want to, by all means, but you will be edit-warring if you do so; and most likely be blocked for a short time. I could care less if you report me, because anyone looking at the edit you keep re-inserting will see that it is not fit for inclusion, especially with you assigning him a new career that is completely false. Doc talk 09:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good try but my edits dont excuse your implied threat toward me. Additionally please link to your approved definition for "part time freelance sports journalist" since you must obviously be following one as a guide since you are so sure of your being correct. 74.132.152.205 (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Freelance: "Someone who sells his services to employers without a long-term contract." Do you have any evidence that Rob Lowe is being paid for his "services"? The
WP:BURDEN is on you, and you have not met the burden to declare him a freelance journalist of any sort. Doc talk 09:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Freelance = "In writing and other artistic fields, "freelance" and its derivative terms are often reserved for workers who create works on their own initiative Journalism = "reporting of events, issues and trends to a broad audience in a timely fashion." Part-time = "carries fewer hours per week than a full-time job." You were saying? I think I proved my burden. Feel free to apologize for your threat at any time. 74.132.152.205 (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You have not met your burden at all. We are not about to call Rob Lowe a part-time freelance sports journalist because of your original research. It's just not going to happen. Doc talk 09:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm so I've cited the same wiki definitions you have, showing me to be right. And yet still you declare I am wrong. And I still havent received an apology for you threatening me. I think I will simply report your harassment of me to an admin. Thanks. 74.132.152.205 (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to! And let me clarify: if you add it again, I will report you to the
WP:3RRNB for edit-warring, as you will have exceeded 3RR. Cheers... Doc talk 09:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Also be aware: (1) Doc is right, (2) His comment was not uncivil, but a warning of the consequences of continuing your behavior, and (3) If you re-insert your edit, I will remove it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply from User talk:Karloffornia

Hello Sir/ Ma'am,

I appreciate your concern. I can sort of explain all of the questions you had. Sort of. First off, I wanted to say that I am by no means trying to vandalize anything. I just do this sort of thing when I bored and discover new information. I have also learned, quite recently, that I have been using citation improperly, and I apologize for that >_< It's a learning experience.

To answer your concern on the "Alice in Wonderland" credit, which was in 2010 by the way and has been since changed properly, it was originally announced, falsely, that Noah Taylor was playing the March Hare and Paul Whitehouse, the Dodo. That link was used, however, because it showed an official press release from Dinsey that mentioned Whitehouse under the credits. It was later discovered that he was replacing Taylor.

As for the "Museum" film, and Sir Christopher, that was changed because I am member of Sir Christopher's official website and it was originally announced that he was indeed signed on to play Darwin in that film. This later was also proved as false.

As for the "Frankenweenie", I may or may not have done the wrong thing. The characters are indeed not listed in those citations. I was merely citing the sources for the actors. The characters were officially released in a Press Release from Disney. I suppose I shouldn't have listed it as there is no way to properly cite it.

Finally, as for the multiple sign-on...things...haha, so this is kind of embarrassing, but if it will make you feel better, I have a serious problem with memory. I even take meds for it. Again, it has nothing to do with me intentionally trying to confuse people with multiple accounts...I just sometimes forget to login. Which actually makes me sad, because I feel that sometimes, I provide some worth while information that I should take credit for >_<

Thank you for your concern, and I apologize once again. I will definitely be more careful in the future. Oh, and sorry for the late response. I hardly have time for wiki anymore! >_< Best, Karloff

Karloffornia (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - thanks for the reply! I didn't really think you were a vandal, as most of the ones I deal with usually don't bother to reply to anything. Some of them have hit the pages you have edited as well (particularly Night At the Museum), so I was just trying to be sure: sorry if I came off too harsh at all! Just a little while ago I reverted the edits of 98.70.34.25 (talk · contribs), who is obsessed with dinosaurs and Frank Welker. This vandal jumps IPs all the time, but never talks to anyone, so I don't even bother trying to give him vandalism warnings. Anyway, thanks again for the explanations, and Happy Editing! Doc talk 21:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles (band)

I'm curious as to why you think my suggestion of a footnote stating that most people, including the band members themselves generally refer to "Eagles" as "the Eagles" would be original research. The evidence I was using for the statement was the numerous cites you provided on the talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think I've ever seen anything that explicitly states that they are generally referred to as "the Eagles" vs. "Eagles": sources just do it. If you could find something that makes this distinction that's one thing, but if we mention it as our own observation, it's treading into the OR department. Doc talk 18:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Simple Request

I haven't addressed this to you directly yet, therefore I will do so now. You have been an instigating participant in some recent discussions about my username. Although most of the inflammatory remarks and actions have come from User:Neutralhomer I would appreciate it if you withheld all such conversation from my talk page, and refrained from adding any banners or text to my user page as well. Comments such as this are simply incendiary and unacceptable: Request denied. That's part of being on a public website, ya know. As far as adminship: I'd wager you don't have it. I don't want or need it: but I know I'd be good at it. Probably a lot better than you. Therefore, if you would like to discuss something about the encyclopedia, articles, or content, I would be more than eager to do so. I am not willing to entertain any other business at this time. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See: wasn't that easier than asking for an IBAN? I think you'll see from your talk page's history that I have never edited it even once. Don't plan to, either. As far as my comment you're quoting from above - that was in direct response to your asking me to "stay out of proceedings that do not concern" me. In a general way, not just anything to do with you, was that advice offered to me by you, and bringing in my non-admin status as a reason. Can't do that, sorry. Good luck to you in your endeavors here, whatever they may be. Doc talk 07:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV

That is one acronym that I am not familiar with. I looked it up and I really hope it is the first one and not that last. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hehe! It stands for "Your Mileage May Vary". It basically means, "This has been true for me from what I've experienced here, but it may not be true for you from your own experience." I forget where I first heard it here, but it seems to make sense. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, personally, have never seen it stand for anything except "Your mileage may vary". It's been in use on the Internet for many, many years. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was that one, but I wanted to make sure. :) The only ones I am familiar with are LOL (and the many LMAO combinations), BRB, and TYT. I made that last one up myself. It means "take your time" in response to a "BRB". Now everyone uses it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I use a bunch of 'em, FWIW. BTW, AFAIK and AFAICT, TYT is certainly an improvement on TTYL. ;P Doc talk 07:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple of glossaries around on the Net, you (NH) should Google them -- you'd be surprised at how many there are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Tube video

Regarding this edit of yours with edit summary of "Can't have this YouTube video linked as a ref", what makes this video unsuitable? I'm ambivalent toward the statement that was removed, its non-binding and talking about the future, but curious regarding your reasoning. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The video is obviously not the property of the uploader, so it is a copyright violation. Some videos on YouTube are okay to link to, but the majority are not.
"Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked to." YouTube is a user submitted site, and is notorious for copyvios, which we try hard to avoid. I probably shouldn't have removed the sentence, just the YT vid as the reference. Doc talk 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I actually struggle to definitively figure out which YouTube users have legit content. Some users I assume are people in the press (based off their name), but they dont have any special note in their channel.—Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the type of thing where it's better safe than sorry. This area will evolve in a big way, with major companies like ESPN having official YouTube channels that we should theoretically have no problem citing, since it's their official content. Any non-official YouTube post should be immediately disregarded. Doc talk 07:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article importance assessment of Jeremy Lin

Regarding Jeremy Lin being mid or high importance, its unrelated to the fact that it is a C-Class article. There's low-importance articles out there that have GA or FA status. There's also top-importance articles in start class. As for this article, I won't quibble over it, as I'm glad editors like yourself have joined in the effort. I will note, there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Players about assessing NBA player articles. Please feel free to join if you are generally interest. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - this one's rating class is actually possbily a bit low considering the number of references. There are lots of other factors to rating, of course. It could make it to B class with not much effort, really. Lin's a phenom, and as a Knicks fan and a New Yorker I may be a bit biased, I must admit. But lots and lots of editors (and viewers) have been seeing this article recently, and the importance is high. I'll look into the link as well: I am certainly a basketball fan. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been on my to-do list to cleanup the Warriors section since end of last season, but then this explosion happened. I never thought anything would exceed last year's cheering. Enjoy the ride.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe - I'm in the New York area, and at my local bar we saw a lot more Knicks fans like myself than we did a week ago to watch the game. Lin's got a lot of pressure on him, but a ton of fans. Lin haters: beware :> Cheers! Doc talk 07:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject National Basketball Association

Please accept this invite to join the WikiProject National Basketball Association, a WikiProject dedicated to improving National Basketball Association related articles. Simply click here to accept!

Thanks for the invite - I'm aboard! Doc talk 07:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smith vs. Smith

Hi -- just to let you know privately, since I have no wish to get into any more arguments with Vidor -- the ABC article you cited about Debbie Smith is actually about Melissa Smith. However, I agree with your revert, since Vidor did not source his assertion that there is "no chance" that Debbie Smith was a Bundy victim, so it stays in until he does. Cheers, DoctorJoeE talk to me! 13:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - oops! Thanks for that. Rule alone did not mention Debbie Smith: in this source and this source, it shows that police had their own suspicions. Maybe Rule got her info from the police - dunno. I've seen nothing to categorically declare her not a Bundy victim, or that it should be removed even if it were found she wasn't one. Cheers :> Doc talk 14:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And DoctorJoeE, hopefully you're watching! Look at this recent spike in the number of viewers to the page in the last couple of days. What the heck is up with that? Maybe this article will get referenced by a major media source ;P Cheers! Doc talk 10:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smith was here

Hi! To win an argument at wt:v not that it is about winning, maybe what is needed is a really flamboyant sig, purple chartreuse yellow and flourescent aquamarine. Can they do flourescent? Otherwise, arguments in black lower-case stand little chance of prevailing, I am thinking. Wish I could spell flourescent, I give up, cheers NewbyG ( talk) 19:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP:V! Now it's all about disregarding these helpful tips:
Nobody ever pays attention to the talk page boxes anyway, right? I try my hardest to go there only when I see stuff like this happen, but it's a quagmire for sure that has no end in sight. As long as VNT has been there, this nonsense may outlive it. Cheers... Doc talk 03:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what's up, Doc?

Why the strange defense of NewbyG's disruption? Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, for sure. I figured that since the two admins had discussed it with NBG, it could have been handled amongst themselves. I don't know what to make of most of their edits beyond AGF gnomish organization; and yet I also can't disagree with the other editors that their other edits look "excessive". Hmm. I didn't see the need to classify it as straight-up disruption, personally. Others disagreed, and I guess that's part of the beauty of having a broad community of editors. Doc talk 05:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is called "dancing on a grave". The thread was resolved. There is no need for you to add your own anecdote to that closed thread. Drop it. Doc talk 05:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability at WP:DR/N

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "At WP:Verifiability". Thank you. -- NewbyG ( talk) 23:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

Is there any chance that you can shed some light on this discussion? Tiderolls 19:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm I'll try to, but I have to leave in a few minutes. Thanks for letting me know :> Doc talk 20:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...

-) ty —
 ?  07:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I forget where I picked up that one (I did not originate it), but it's always been a favorite of mine. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conlimited

Hey Doc, I responded to your note on my talk page, and I saw another comment from you that I may have misunderstood, but the current BRD editing of Policy on V isn't really per

WP:CONLIMITED
, CONLIMITED also says:

"Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others"

Bolding is mine, and this reflects earlier editor's concerns that the so-called "compromise" versions of WP:V weren't widely publicized to the community and did not have a "higher standard of participation and consensus" until it was so advertised. Then the 'losers' started calling that "shenanigans" and attacking the editors who insisted on wide community advertisement and participation. Those editors were never reigned in and have now been joined by someone else that wants to play games. I took that annoying nonsense off my watchlist, and it feels wonderful!

Dreadstar ☥ 03:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Let 'em trash the policy even more; it's a disgrace to the processes we are supposed to go by. I'm not one of these drama-lovers that says, "Harumph! I'm retiring! (but not for real, because I'll really be back for many "curtain-calls")" I will never, ever make one more edit to that policy, or the talk page of that God-forsaken cesspool. I will never point any new editor to WP:V - it does not exist for me anymore. I don't need to even look at it: I already know what it's about. Truthiness. Bullshit [under discussion/disputed/not part of policy/:<]. I am so done, and they can gnaw on my bones over there. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More fodder for conspiracy-theorists: you thought to come over to our talk-page to talk to me (=you=he=etc). Now,. I'm not one of these drama-lovers that says, "Harumph! I'm retiring! (but really I am back for a widdle "curtain-calls")" - God-forsaken cesspool is good, but uncivil and if we hear me speaking like that again you will get V cross! Apple-ologies NewbyG ( talk) 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. "Cesspool" was a bit strong. Cheerfully withdrawn. Doc talk 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry
case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a

sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roger Pearse for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh, this is too rich. I hope you got your boots on, Kalidasa, because this one's gonna hurt. Like 1,000 trouts raining on your talkpage kinda hurt. Facepalm Facepalm Doc talk 04:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have received a very polite message from the user who mistakenly opened the SPI, and per
long-standing principle, have made up, and I expect to remain on good terms with the editor. Ain't Wikipedia wonderful! In future, if I get on the slippery slope towards more self-inflicted? dramah, I now have self-medicating recourse to a patent-medicine remedy, Sanity check, available on user talk:newbyguesses. Cheers, NewbyG ( talk) 20:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Kalidasa777 was only acting in good faith - I couldn't hold any ill will or grudges against those who do that. We all make mistakes, of course. You wanna see a crazy, diff-filled SPI that failed miserably? Behold this one. Did I ever feel like a chump after all that work? ;> Cheers... Doc talk 23:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I come here to check on you and what do I see, you getting yourself into something!  :) I see things don't change all that much now do they? Hey there Doc, you do remember a good friend! See you soon. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's about time I heard from you! This place needs you - no slacking! The politics will always be here, so there's no surprises. We need our good editors! Doc talk 13:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I first need to get my computer finished. It's been months now, but it was finally figured out that it was hardware failure causing the main problems. Now I need my email working, my files and my address book, having my calendar back would be nice too.  :) I have to figure out how to do things again. I have all this garbage at the top of my page now, need to figure out what it is and if I need it. I don't think I want all of it though so I'm going to have to clean house more or less. I'll see you soon. Until then, you do know how to get ahold of me. Right now that's the only way to so please don't hesitate to use it. Talk to you soon sweetie. Be back when I have a working computer and downloaded firefox. I don't want explorer for here for obvious reasons. Talk soon. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC

We'd be very glad to have you join on Sunday! And you don't need a nametag at all :)--Pharos (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm definitely trying to make it, and if there is any way I can work it, I will be there. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you in the NY area now? I really don't remember.  :) If you do go, hit me up on chat and let me know how it goes. I've always been curious about these get together. Have a good time. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't make it - but hopefully I can make the next one! Doc talk 06:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Bundy

Hi, there is an editor forcing nonsense, at least I think so, into this article. It's redudant and unnecessary to put another quote in from the Michaud book. I have reverted twice as has another editor. I put a note on the talk page about this too. Please give your opinions on this as I will not be reverting again. As is I reverted twice and usually my rule is to do this only once. From the amount of edits it looks like a new editor but of course that can be deceiving. I look forward to you checking this out. We worked hard to get this article to 'Good' status and personally, I'd love to see it stay that way. This has been pretty much my only edits except for talk pages. I am just trying to get a feel for things again. Let me know Doc, and thanks as always. If I am wrong about this, as usual no feelings will be hurt if I am reverted to the other way. Talk to you soon. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's handled - I don't think we should include the quotes either. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update

The Vandal Eliminator Award
You deserve this VEA for all your work in so many areas. I appreciate all that you do in tracking these pests down. MarnetteD | Talk 16:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note about the Hawaiian editor and their obsession. I will keep my eye peeled for any of their nonsense. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I hardly expected this revert to lead me to an obsessive, completely non-notable self-promoter who is even trying to make himself a historical figure. Game over! The only way to deal with the VCVs and Ross M. Browns around here is to horrify them by letting them know they are being watched intensely, deny them their vandalism edits, and make them move on to either Pokemon-type things off-wiki or constructive things on-wiki, assuming they are capable of constructive edits to begin with. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oy I hope VCV is on vacation

I came upon this IP today 187.141.102.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) all the edits were dubious and some were outright false - seems familiar:-). On the other hand it geolocates to Puebla just outside Mexico City so I can only hope that VCV is on vacation there with the family because if our pest(s) is/are going world wide it'll make me long for the days of the bubonic plague. :-P MarnetteD | Talk 15:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I hadn't check the block log when I made my first post. Looks like this is a repeat offender. I have notified the last admin to block them but I don't know if they are online so we might have to do wome more reverting for the time being. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! I saw that one and thought the same thing, "Is he on vacation in Mexico?" I doubt it's actually him, but vandals are vandals: some are just more "creative" than others. I tend to think that anyone who gets into the VCV area (Welker, Cummings, et. al) will either provide a reference for credits or prove that they are not the VCV one way or the other. A great and simple way to prove they are not the vandal is to actually talk to other editors if they are reverted. Only time will tell... Doc talk 05:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some pizza for you!

pizza pie! Pizza promotes WikiLove
and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a pizza pie, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

For debating, while keeping a clear head, in the Eagles' naming debate.

Spread the decadence of a delicious pizza pie by adding {{subst:pizzapie}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:pizza-munch}}!

Neutralhomer extended discussion

I've reverted your hatting. I think that the point about friends not always being productive should be visible on the page, and there won't be any more discussion in that thread. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - it wasn't making it less visible, just making it easier to read the entire thread. Meh. As I commented at the AN: we do not/will not/can not discourage those who support any particular editor from participating in a discussion like this. Anyone can comment there, from "best-pal-on-earth" to "most-hated-enemy". Cheers :> Doc talk 07:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I did, not extreme, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with any of his friends and naturally expect that they will support him and be allowed to do so freely. I'd want the same thing if I were in this situation. No one besides Jack truly knows why he's pulled the rug out from under his own feet; I sure as hell didn't expect it to go down quite like this. It's unfortunate. Doc talk 07:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he wanted to give me a revealing picture of who is who's friend he was quite successful ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make the guy implode. This is not the first time he's done it, either. If I did similar things I would fully expect the same treatment. Doc talk 09:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) sorry if I was not clear, by "me" I meant not me personally but everybody interested. I certainly did not mean any "you", not singular, not plural, so wonder why you stress I as if you had to defend yourself. If I got you wrong, please explain, my English is limited. In the last thread I commented on ANI - and had hoped it would be the last ever - I said something like: I don't understand, not the language, not the spirit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I was just emphasizing that Jack has chosen his own situation again by repeating the same disruptive behavior, and that I (or anyone else) did not make him choose his most recent gambit. People are sick to death of his games, apparently. Patience does not last forever. Doc talk 09:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can follow you to "has chosen" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! Well, ban or no, there's no way your friend is going away. I've seen this bluff too many times. So don't despair! Cheers... Doc talk 10:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for curiosity: what makes you think "despair"? (I rarely smile in despair.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a clumsy attempt at "ironic humor". We both know he is not going away, so telling you not to be sad was a way of saying, "Until next time!" Doc talk 10:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, taken, irony is hard for me to tell in written English, - but sad and despair feel different for me, and I am sad, instead of being proud of
Kafka, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
FWIW - I've watched him being his usual self for some time now (both helpful and unhelpful), and saw the block for edit-warring (which was completely deserved for any editor). When he scuttled his account: no surprise. I figured he'd wait the block out and take his lumps like any of us would be expected to. He didn't do that. His immature reaction is what really demonstrates what happens when he doesn't get his way. We don't need editors like this freaking out and disrupting the 'pedia to make a point. I doubt you (or I) will do the same. Cheers, Gerda, and good luck :> Doc talk 09:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
for good luck, I imagine the rug as a flying carpet, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am frankly surprised that the ban passed. He and I haven't bothered each other in months, and I had no plans to interfere in what he was doing. But going crazy over a short block for edit-warring seemed to be the final straw for many here. I take no joy or pleasure out of the outcome; I think it's a sad situation, honestly. He is a far cry from a Grawp, and it's unfortunate that he is now lumped in with the likes of people like that. My condolences, Gerda. Doc talk 07:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you did not hear me ;)
see also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I see you're sending this message to a lot of people now, and I find it touching. I don't think it's going to do a whole hell of a lot, but your loyalty is enviable. I wish I weren't so jaded. Doc talk 07:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Define "lot of people", I am addressing selected few of the "community". I don't yet know what to tell pablo --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you of canvassing or anything like that. I don't want to talk about Jack (or Malleus) anymore. It's time to move on for me. Cheers... Doc talk 07:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that then makes ban discussions to be a popularity contest, which is extremely bad for the project if the person who has behaved badly is popular. The same applies in reverse, if someone is considered to be a cunt, but they haven't actually done anything wrong then they shouldn't be banned.
If you take out the popularity contest part of the discussion then if you haven't behaved badly the neutral people will side with you. Friends/enemies could still bring evidence to the table if it exists. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a perfect system, but it's what we have to work with for now. RfA's are (were?) sort of a popularity contest, and so are ban discussions. We can't arbitrarily label editors as supporters or enemies and then discount their opinions by exclusion. Think about it. It's up to the closing admin to muck through the "weight" of each view. Someone will close this eventually. Doc talk 08:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would still be a hell of a lot better if the friends and enemies made an effort to stay away and get their viewpoints discounted.
It would be better for the banned user too, as the current system sticks so much drama on their return that they never can. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc9871/Archive_3&oldid=1153030760"