User talk:DoctorJoeE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • If I left you a message on your talk page, please answer on your talk page. There is no need to let me know, since I will have added your talk page to my watch list; but if you want to be sure I see it, you can ping me there, or simply drop a note on this page.
  • If you leave me a message here, I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and I will ping you to let you know.
  • Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked.
Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message.

If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human; I make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion.
  • While I do use the ping function a lot, as noted above, you can expedite communication by keeping my talk page on your watchlist.
  • In the interest of keeping this page relatively brief and manageable, after a section has not been edited for two weeks it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. I do, of course, reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

What is this "real life" that you speak of, and where can I download it?

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at

WP:RETENTION This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Stade Roland Garros[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This is presented for your contributions to the Stade Roland Garros article. WOW! The Ink Daddy! (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Theatre Project collaboration[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosProteus (talkcontribs) 12:16, 21 April 2011‎ (UTC)

GOCE March drive newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update
Writing Magnifying.PNG

GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter.

Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!

Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far.

Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers.

Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk)

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardsBot (talkcontribs) 21:19, 14 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue[edit]

Books & Bytes

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

Deletion of cannon ball shot content[edit]


I added some content related to the cannon shot that struck the Delhi's Iron Pillar in history. It has been deleted from your username it says. I took the content from a journal which already had some citations. I used those citations for my added information. So could you explain what is the reason behind deleting that information?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marathas iitgn (talkcontribs) 13:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I explained it at some length on the talk page of that article. There are copyright issues here. If you want to re-add the content in your own words, with proper sourcing, feel free. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am not able to figure out which reference i am missing out. I read the information about the cannon ball from a journal. So I mentioned the name of the general in the references along with a link to it. Also, the journal itself had some references mentioned on the text which I used. Hence, I mentioned those references also to be on the safer side. Could you please help me out on what I am missing. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marathas iitgn (talkcontribs) 19:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me try to put it right. As I explained on the article talk page, I removed your content because it was plagiarized virtually verbatim -- grammatical errors and all -- from this primary source. The sources copied from that article are mostly personal communications, which do not qualify as WP:RS. Meanwhile, please do not revert again; edit warring will get you blocked if an admin notices that you have reverted repeatedly. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: I have rewritten the section to avoid copyright issues, with additional sources. If you have any objections or suggestions, please let me know. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi! You reverted what I wrote on the Benders because you said it didn't have anything to do with the Benders. I believe it did since it proved that the people that are referred to by a lot of newspaper sources (and books that refer to it) as the Benders were not the Benders. Should I have put it on a separate page? Thank you! Jiggilypuffs (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggilypuffs (talkcontribs) 02:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was clearly in good faith, and I labeled it as such. The problem is that you synthesized facts from a collection of published material, and drew a conclusion about those facts that is not clearly stated by any of the published sources themselves. This is known in WP parlance as original research, and it is not permitted. You would need to find a published reliable source that draws that same conclusion -- that the contemporary newspapers were incorrect about Almira Hill and John Flickinger -- before you could add it to the article. I know it is frustrating, and it's very tempting to draw your own conclusions when the evidence is laid out right in front of you; but "no original research" is one of WP's fundamental rules, and must be adhered to.
If you can't locate a published source that draws that conclusion, your other alternative would be to simply state the facts (and cite the sources) without drawing any conclusions -- leaving readers to draw whatever conclusions they wish. If you choose that option, I would suggest that you incorporate the material directly into the existing paragraph, or make a separate paragraph for it, but not a separate section. You just have to be careful not to bury the reader in minutiae. I would be happy to help with that, if you wish. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for politely taking the time to answer me. I had no idea that original research wasn't allowed (or that pointing out that they got married after the murders happened counted as original research, but I do see your/wikipedia's point). I would love help putting it in the paragraph. I think it's important for Almira Hill and John Flickinger to not go down in history as the Bender mass murderers just because an early 1900's newspaper said so without checking the primary sources of marriage and death records. Jiggilypuffs (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I quite agree. Give it a shot, at your convenience, and I'll copyedit as necessary. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Steve Barton[edit]

The district attorney in Bremen NEVER ruled his death as suicide as it's stated on the autopsy report. The rumor was fueled by exwife and exagent. You should know what you're talking before posting something you have no idea about.

First of all, please sign your notes on talk pages. No established editor will take snide anonymous comments seriously. Now, to your point: We use published sources here at WP because they fact-check their stories, and generally don't rely on rumor and innuendo. The published sources cited in the Barton article state that the Bremen DA ruled his death a suicide. If you have a reliable published source that says something different, feel free to call our attention to it. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors February 2015 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 38 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We were able to remove August 2013 from the general copyediting backlog and November 2014 from the request-page backlog. Many thanks, everyone!

Blitz: The February Blitz will run from February 15–21 and again focuses on the requests page. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one request article. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I just created a Wikipedia account today. I tried to add a spouse line to the Phil Spector bio. page ,, I thought it should be as simple as adding the following line (just like in other pages): | spouse = Rachelle Short (m. 2006) it did not work in this page. Would you please help?JCCBama (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@JCCBama:, I'm as baffled as you. It appears in the source material but not the info box itself! You might want to pose your question on the article's talk page, where it will surely be answered by someone with a better grasp of the technical aspects of WP than mine. (I'm almost exclusively a content editor.) Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Link to Blocki Kosciuszko perfume[edit]

John Blocki was a pioneer American perfumer that honored Polish and Prussian historic figures and artists with his fragrances. The Blocki family was part of the Szlatchta noble class. John Blocki emigrated to the US in 1850 with his family as they fled the revolutions. Bouquet Kosciuszko is a notable tribute since more perfumes are named after French or English historic figures. It is a fitting cultural tribute as are the other arts referenced like opera, novels and poems. Fika6035 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Fika6035

@Fika6035: Fair enough, and that information is appropriate for the John Blocki article; but unfortunately, it falls into the "who cares" category of notability on the Kosciuszko page. I simply can't agree that a long-defunct perfume brand is in any way comparable to the bridges, parks, national memorials, museums, stamps, literary and musical works, etc., etc. that bear his name. If you disagree, I would strongly suggest that you make your case on the Kosciuszko talk page before attempting to add it again; because as I'm sure you noticed, I was not the only one who reverted it -- and unless you can gain a consensus for it on the talk page, I'm pretty sure that it will continue to be reverted. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


If I may, it might be best to start a discussion on the article talk page before accusations of edit-warring start getting thrown about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 29 Shevat 5775 03:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Flinders Petrie: The burden of evidence lies with the editor(s) making the change. They cannot remove sourced material and then ask me to justify putting it back; it's their job to justify removing it. So I'll await their argument for removing it, and then respond. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I might give my two p on it later. I was just trying to avoid having things get unfriendly. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 29 Shevat 5775 05:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Few comments[edit]

  • Please format refs similar to those is the rest of the article. WP:MEDRS explains how
  • We typically do not use patient but use person instead per WP:MEDMOS

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: Understood. Thanks. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was ...[edit]

... why would a serial sockmaster who has created no less than 100 different accounts be especially passionate about one particular account? Why would they expend any energy defending one when all the have to do is make another? I'm really confused by that. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: I suppose only a serial sockmaster could answer that. Again, I can't presume to speak for Dennis, but I think what he was getting at was, if the suspicions are groundless, SPI or Arb will surely determine that -- so why not sit back, wait for vindication, and accept the apologies? Believe me, I understand the frustration of being falsely accused -- I've been there -- but human nature being what it is, the more one protests, the more others suspect that there might be something there. If there is nothing there, the vultures will be eating crow soon enough. Patience. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You're right. I'll take tomorrow off to cool down. Thanks for the advice. Rationalobserver (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

John List[edit]

Sorry, didn't mean to start an edit war, but I never used the Talk page before and did not know how to respond to your reverting my addition to a page, since it has not happened to me in a long time. I just thought my addition to the John List page added good information, since it was an extremely thorough episode, complete with a very lengthy and chilling interview with List. As you stated, the episode may be mentioned in the External Links, but I just don't believe it is that visible there. I rarely look at the external links and instead focus on the body of the article itself. I suppose that my main question/concern is why should we not allow for a more complete discussion of topics within the actual body of their articles, especially when someone is good enough to add the information, and as is the case here, the information is easily verifiable? I am a media professor at a state university and I am always interested in adding information about media presentations to various articles, usually old-time radio programs. I have not had a media addition of mine reverted or edited in many years, thus I was a bit surprised by it. However, if you believe it is not important enough to include in the body of the article, I concede. Felixthecat70 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Felixthecat70: The reason that I suggested you make your case on the talk page is that I truly don't know what the right answer is here. We continually see reminders that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, and a simple reference in the external links section would seem to be sufficient for a straightforward documentary about List. Since you feel otherwise, I thought it fair to initiate a discussion and solicit the opinions of other interested editors. I'll start a thread over there now, summarizing what we've both said here; feel free to add to it. We can go with whatever consensus develops. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: Thanks very much for your consideration and extra effort in this case. It is greatly appreciated. Felixthecat70 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2015 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 21 people who signed up, eight copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: The blitz removed 16 articles from the requests list, and we're almost done with December 2014. Many thanks, everyone!

Drive: The month-long March drive begins in about a week. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Dermatology Task Force[edit]

Hi DoctorJoeE, I took a peek at the Dermatology task force and came across your name. I'm currently seeking out someone from the Dermatology task force or Wikiproject Medicine to act as an additional reviewer for the acne vulgaris article. Any chance that you're interested in doing that or know someone active on the task force who would be? Any help would be appreciated! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: Sure, be happy to. Anything in particular, or just general overview? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks DoctorJoeE! Regarding what is needed for the review, here is what Bluerasberry said: "By Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#The_six_good_article_criteria, I confirmed points 3 entirely and 4 in the parts we discussed. Someone else needs to sign off on the other parts, including "well written", "verifiable", "neutral" (for what I did not cover), "stable", and "illustrated"." So, a general overview would be fine or the scope of your review can be a bit narrower than that and complement Bluerasberry's. If anything does need fixing on the article, I only ask that you tell me and I'll promptly make them (rather than go through the process of failing it and starting all over again). Thanks again for the help! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DoctorJoeE. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


I saw what you've listed in User:DoctorJoeE#Observations, and I wanted to invite you to keep Wikipedia:Irregular verbs on Wikipedia on your watchlist, and in your mind in case you can help expand it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Duly watchlisted; will help with expansion as inspiration strikes! DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 10[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
  • New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
  • TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dyslexia GA review[edit]

hello DoctorJoeE... Blue Rasberry has passed the GA review article for Dyslexia, however it needs another individual to look at it and then close, I saw your help on Acne Vulgaris and decided you could help, should there be any additional information needed, references or images I would not hesitate to add them at your request, I thank you for your time, please contact me with any questions, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: I will do my best to get this done by the end of the weekend. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thank you very much Doctor JoeE, again should you have any questions do not hesitate to ask, thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I apologize, some problems have come up in regard to the article, apparently it will have to be put on hold,,, again Doctor JoeE I apologize, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa: So I see. Not a problem, let me know when you need me. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
DoctorJoeE try now, I think its ready,(whether it passes or fails) thank you, for your generous time and patience in this matter--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
DoctorJoeE whenever your ready--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm have some pressing real-world work to complete first, so give me a couple of days. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
DoctorJoeE if your not available, just let me know, I can try to find someone, but first I would prefer to get your OK--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll get it done today. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
DoctorJoeE there have been no more comments/objections from other reveiwers, I think you can close...thank you very much,God bless you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

(BTW the Legobot hasn't placed the GA icon on the front of the article?)

DoctorJoeE...thank you for your GA review--

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Yes, GA icon placement is supposed to be automatic. Perhaps it takes awhile. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks again, your awesome--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Dietrich von Choltitz[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Why do you tell others to go to the talk page and then not do so yourself? I am adding more information, with more reliable sources than movie reviews. -- (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

First, you cannot add an edit war template when you are the other party involved. Secondly, this is not an edit war, since I restored only the information you removed stating one side of the case (including sources), which was an obvious violation of WP:NPOV, and left your other edits. Third, since you are the one changing the content, the burden is on you to make your case on the talk page. If you persist in removing sourced content without explanation, I will seek administrative assistance. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I can too add the template, as I was simply warning you to heed your own advice and go to the talk page, which you had refused to do. What exactly of mine did you leave on the page? a link correction, that is it. I have already explained why I removed sourced content, because those sources aren't up to wikipedia's standards.

-- (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No, actually, you can't -- since you were the other party involved. As I mentioned on the talk page, you only went there after my revert, not before, as you claimed, and you didn't make a valid case for the material you removed. Magazine articles (reviews or otherwise) do not violate WP:RS, but your removal of an entire side of a story, complete with cited sources, violates WP:NPOV. I will be restoring the material with additional sourcing. As for what content of yours I left in the article, it was the 4 paragraphs pertaining to Choltitz's career -- but I have since noticed (and noted on the talk page) that you did not cite any sources for this material; interesting, for someone so particular about sourcing. Please do so. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please direct me to where on wikipedia it says I can't ask you to cease edit-warring? As for your other comments, those are being discussed on the talk page so I will leave it there. An opinion piece by a movie critic about an unrelated movie is not a reliable source on a historical figure, if there was some citations by the author or some authority on the subject, then it would be different. But a movie critic is no more qualified to write about history (and be used as an expert source) than I am at performing surgery.

-- (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars, for starters. More references on request. It's basically an example of wikilawyering -- and the pot calling the kettle black. And please stop dwelling on the New Yorker article, which I don't object to removing. What I do object to is your removing the other sources for that content, such as the Baruma article -- and the content itself. Let's continue this, as you said, on the article talk page. I have other sources, which I will list there, hopefully later tonight. And I will restore the content, along with sources that I hope you approve of. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool[edit]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

personal health
Thank you for quality articles on people, such as Hack Wilson, for dispute resolution, copy-editing, new page patrol, treatment of articles' talk pages, and for thinking "Sounds like that scale -- the one that balances user contributions with user issues -- needs some serious recalibrating", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 454th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Gerda, thank you once again. Your uplifting messages are a breath of fresh air. You are yourself one of Wikipedia's precious jewels! DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 11:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That's fresh air for me, an editor restricted because of alleged battles (but no precise transgressions provided) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ridiculous, isn't it? I've said repeatedly that if the political factions of this community were to devote more of their considerable energies to creating encyclopedia content -- which I (perhaps naively) thought was the reason for its existence -- we would all be much happier, and the world would have a much better encyclopedia. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

John Allen Muhammad Edits[edit]

The reason I ( didn't re-write the section to which you've paid attention, is that I encounter far too many errors in Wikipedia articles on a regular basis. It can be as common as EVERY article I go to on a daily basis. Errors of syntax, punctuation, citation, paragraph structure, etc, etc, etc are so common, that If I edited every error I found, I wouldn't have time tor much else. Not to mention that simply editing (or adding to) an article involves so many burdensome formatting rules that I've found difficult to understand, that I just do what I can. And that includes edits like the one I made.

@ We all have a finite amount of editing time. I would merely point out that in the time it took you to add a wisecrack calling attention to one minor error -- and forcing a time-wasting revert by another editor -- you could have simply fixed it. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 02:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here!

May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)