User talk:Drjem3

Hello, Drjem3. You have new messages at Talk:Abram Hoffer.
Message added 14:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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

Please review the

Another point - revisiting the same issue repeatedly can be seen as both

_complex 18:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

Per

I'm curious why you are undoing content changes to an article on the basis of a discussion on a completely different talk page. Why would you remove sourced content and sources from

_complex 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You still haven't removed my name from the section headings at talk:DID and Tom Cloyd's talk page. Is there a reason? Do you have any objection to me retitling?

_complex 01:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Under the circumstances, yes. A decision I arrive at very reluctantly. If you continue your disruptive editing (about which there seems to be evolving an emerging concensus), I want other editors to be aware of this situation. Enough is enough. Drjem3 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry WLU, but I strongly agree with Dr. Jem here. The titles should come down even though WLU is just 3 letters, not a name, but WLU you complain of titles while swearing at me and yes I know there are not rules that says that swearing is not allowed as you have pointed out, but it is poor manners. By the way Dr. Jem - your simple line on your user page is classic! That has been my experience since I have been here as well thanks to WLU and DG! I appreciate you Dr. Jem. You are wise and an expert in the area of psychology who should get respect for that and you have mine.~ty (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on an article over at User:Nucleophilic/Peter H. Proctor and would appreciate your imput if you have the time. Thanks. Nucleophilic (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. 22:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

From my rather quick read, this looks OK to publish. I made one change and may make more later. Also, suggest title be "Peter Proctor" rather than "Peter H Proctor." Also may want to post notices over on melanin, etc. where there may be editors interested. Otherwise, plenty of third-party cites, etc. Looks good. Drjem3 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I juat posted this as Peter Proctor. Nucleophilic (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. My mistake.Drjem3 (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will watch out in the future. Drjem3 (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have contributed materially to Peter Proctor, you might wish to look at an evolving situation there. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I will take a look and make suggestions for possible improvements as I get the time. Drjem3 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The 
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 28 January 2013.

I've reported edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Nucleophilic_reported_by_User:Noleander_.28Result:_.29. --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Talk:Nobel Prize controversies Nucleophilic (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 
Procedures of the Committee
.

The 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
.