User talk:Doc9871/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Check please

Before I do anything drastically redheaded ;-) would you check 70.208.74.161? Followed me to Temple City article. Love your response above! Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It could be her, for sure. Same clumsy "reworking" of text, same IP signature, same "following around of you". Let's see what happens with the report, and go from there: no major damage yet... Doc9871 (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI: I am so used to reverting on the Ryan Seacrest article that I was a bit slow today. I left this on the Seacrest talk page later:

To: "70.134.76.224" AKA SRQ. Ok, I am bored with you now. As they said in "Wiki-Gripe," Get a life! Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again, I was in the dark.

I really appreciate your keeping me apprised of SRQ's case. I had no idea we had finally reached the appropriate recommendation. I can finally take a *Deep Breath*. My gratitude is unbounded! Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check out the Bundy article

Hi a new editor just made a large edit to Ted Bundy. Something isn't right about the edit. Please take a look here. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is strange, but no way to tell it's her right now. The other two articles this person edited have to do with Welsh football - hardly an interest of SRQ that I know of. I'll keep my eyes on it, as I'm sure you will. Cheers! :> Doc9871 (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick request

Your recent comments to User talk:Crohnie do not seem to be going anywhere productive, and it might be about time just to let it go. It has been a while now, so maybe this advice is redundant. I think that everyone else involved has already been asked to take a deep breath and calm down, so I am hoping that this little flare up from the drama bug can be quietly put to rest. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks, 2/0! Doc9871 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Doc9871. You have new messages at fuhghettaboutit's talk page.

Fair use rationale for File:Charlesmanson2009mug1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Charlesmanson2009mug1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a mug shot[1]. No one owns it, and I have no questions about that at all. Thanks for the template warning, though - please read this. If it's deleted, I will re-insert it with the appropriate rationale. Thank you... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read User:DESiegel/Template the regulars. I notified you because I'm working my way through Category:Mug shots, it has nothing to do with WQA and I don't appreciate the insinuation. I am aware that arguments have been made that mug shots are public domain, but as they are not as a whole conclusive at least for now the image either needs evidence that it specifically is in the public domain or it needs a fair use rationale, not simply a claim of "Fair use asserted". Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So... instead of "dropping me a line" about the image rationale - you randomly template me and put it up for deletion. Nothing to do with the WQA? Really? You honestly think this image deserves deletion for the reason you are giving? Go for it - it will remain. Trust me on this. Nice try, though... Doc9871 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't randomly template you, I told you your file lacked a FUR in the way that it's supposed to be treated. If you want to scan my contributions you'll see that I worked my way through other 'C' mugshots yesterday and 'B' mugshots the day before. As to what I honestly think, I think you should follow the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy, that's all. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of working my way through mugshots - you clearly know how to apply a FUR, it isn't so hard, is it? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So instead of pointing this out in the first place, you just nominate the image for deletion. It was hurting the article (and wiki) because it didn't have all the tiny details? I'm tired right now - but you've picked a really bad fight here. I'll see you tomorrow on this one (fresh and ready). Manson at age 74 in a prison mug shot is going to stay here, and I'll be able to explain it better later - we've got a week at least, right? Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're accusing me of picking a fight because I point out that your picture is in violation of policy, maybe you should work somewhere besides WQA? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it okay now? Take the deletion tag off please... Doc9871 (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

But you won't, I bet. Because it isn't about the image - it's about something else. See you in the funny pages... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, well I guess this was a waste of time. I don't think anything was done and the bot just archived it away. What a waste of time esp. since she is still at it. Thought you should know. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is she still socking? The thread may be bot-archived, but it's not resolved by any means. The SPI case has been hanging out there forever, and it must be resolved to remove it from the board. I'm starting to get pretty irritated with this whole thing as well... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Check your email please. I sent it to you for your collection. :) The spi has also been closed and archived I believe. At least it says it's completed. That being said, I didn't see anything change. Yes, I am as frustrated as you and everyone else about it. I just don't think they taking socking seriously enough. Instead of dealing with this, everyone got involved in an editor outing complaint even though the editor who complained about outing had his real name attached to his user page. Sometimes focus is needed at AN/i to take care of the important matters first I think would help. Oh well, what can be done? Maybe adding the new IP's socking recently would reactivate interest? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that it is her - the Rosemead connection is interesting, but the account goes back too far, and the majority of edits are to articles she wouldn't go to. I don't think she would have have bothered "sleeper" socking when she was active (too "proud" back then). I may be wrong, but I'm not convinced here. Keep looking - she probably still is at it. Her SPI isn't closed - it's just taking forever. Keep the e-mails coming, Crohnie, and I hope all is well! Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

HI Doc #1! Just an FYI, a Verizon acct with TWO geo locations showed up on Ryan Seacrest article today , which I assiduously monitor. Could it be? I have a Bad feeling  :-( Will tell Crohnie too! Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This could possibly be her (same geo signature and editing method) - already saw that. Since the lengthy SPI processing is so slow-going, I don't want to add it just yet. The history is always there, anyway. If you're referring to this (AT&T, not Verizon) or this (Verizon, but an uncharacteristic, old edit history and different domain): not provably SRQ, and I'm not confident either of those two are her. So many socks (IP's especially) out there: don't think it's her every time you see one, or you'll go mad. She'll be much more careful now, but I wouldn't worry about it too much. Keep looking and letting me know. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

She's BAAAACK! Brazen,bold and thinks WE are stupid! Going to my quiet place now BBL! AAARRRGGGHHH!! DocOfSoc (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC) [2]

This looks bad. Hmmm... Doc9871 (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Go to Luke's talk page and give a polite poke too, please! :) Maybe we can poke enough people to generate some interest again. If not, I guess AN/i is the next stop which I don't want to do but if needed... --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not many admins (save for Luke) seem to want to touch this case: I have no idea why. We already did the AN/I, and nothing came of it whatsoever. It's been about a month now since the report was filed. Who really is SRQ? I'm starting to wonder if it isn't a "former admin" type - but I doubt it. For whatever reason, this editor is allowed to sock unabashedly, and nothing will be done about it... Doc9871 (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What we do is we link to the archive discussion and force another conversation until someone does something already. With this latest attacks she did on multiple editors maybe more attentions will be given to it this time around. The last time she just looked like she was trying to 'help' the articles. Now she is agressively attacking editors in good standing and not even trying to hide who she is, that should be a helpful difference to get someone to respond more rapidly to the situation. Think about it, they do nothing and this esculates out of control, who will they blame? I say lets get the ball moving now that we have proof she isn't here to be helpful. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if she's trying to "help" or "harm": she's a banned editor who is blatantly socking. She's not welcome on Wikipedia for a reason, and she was community-banned unanimously. It's very tiresome at this point - a ban is a ban, and socking to evade a ban is just that. Let the SPI case rot, I guess. To any admin watching this page: it's a very simple case (with lots of boring evidence). QUACK!!! Doc9871 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just updated the SPI here. I figured it can't hurt anything but maybe it will help?! Oh and I also went through some of the Sabra accounts edits and reverted them if no one else edited after her. I was surprised at how many I could revert to mark as a sock account of a banned user. Thoughts, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I fixed a couple of spelling errors, however. Good grief! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes, I really appreciate it. You see me look foolish again with this type of spelling please do fix it. <grin with red cheeks>, Well in case you missed it here it is now closed. She got indefinited finally! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you help explain to me what User:Jeff G. is saying about me vandalizing?

He is claiming that I am vandalizing and I just do not know how that can be. I just don't understand how my edits are or were vandalism. But he keeps telling me that I vandalized this article Alexey Shved. I noticed that you said on his talk page and that he should not have done a revert like that in another case. I think he is also wrongly claiming vandalism against me. Could you help explain this to me? I am getting confused now because I just cannot see how my edits are vandalism.74.194.176.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC).

This is not an appropriate revert of "vandalism" either. See WP:ROLLBACK. Undoing an edit is one thing: you must provide an edit summary for it. Rollbacking is for blatant vandalism only... Doc9871 (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A song for you

De Wikipedia sock puppet*

De Wikipedia editors sing dis song, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

De Wikipedia sockpuppet cases are five miles long, Oh, doo-dah day!

I come down dah wid my diffs caved in, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

I go back home wid a pocket full of sin, Oh, doo-dah day!

Gwine to post all night!

Gwine to post all day!

I'll bet my money on de sockpuppet Skag,

Somebody bet on de bay.

De cellphone filly and de big black sock, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

Dey fly to Wikipedia Review and dey both cut across, Oh, doo-dah-day!

De blind sock sticken with a indefinite block, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

Can't touch bottom de Wikipedia wid a ten foot pole, Oh, doo-dah-day!

Chorus

Old Skag Queen come on to de track, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

De sockpuppet flung ober on her back, Oh, doo-dah-day!

Den fly along like a rail-road car, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

Runnin' a race wid a cellphone sock, Oh, doo-dah-day!

Chorus

See dem flyin' on de sockpuppet diffs, Doo-dah doo-dah!

Round de encylopedia, den repeat, Oh, doo-dah-day!

Doc won his case on de sockpuppet page, Doo-dah! doo-dah!

I keep my bets on admins with guts, Oh, doo-dah-day!

• Paraphrased from the original by Stephen Foster

Awesome! Finally. We all did it, and only because we knew exactly who it was. Wouldn't have filed this SPI otherwise. 1 for 1 - it's a start... Doc9871 (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said previously, what a bunch of idiots. You have no idea who this so-called "sock" really is, all you have is guesses and no proof. Do you have any clue how many Verizon Wireless customers edit Wikipedia? 100? 1000? More? (yes, definitely more!!!) Alas, so many Verizon Wireless IPs available, so little time.............LOL! <|8~P User:70.208.13.78 unsigned, signed by --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

SRQ: you're done here. I'll tag this IP at my leisure. You cannot hide your voice - it's why you were banned to begin with. "Guesses and no proof"? You should have allowed your ban to expire. Now it's "Whack-A-Skag", I guess... Doc9871 (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL! You think I'm SRQ, eh? Idiots, complete idiots. Yep, guesses and no proof. A "voice" can be replicated; without IP evidence, all you have is guesses and no proof. Even the CU said there was no real technical proof. Yes, catch me if you can (and you did not and cannot). LOL! <|8~P User:70.196.66.150 added by --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Pitiful. Admit defeat: it happened. You're not SRQ? Seriously... Doc9871 (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't talk to her! She'll be done when the testing is over and the encyclopedia goes to full flag rev. Then anybody that isn't ok'd to edit won't get their edits allowed to be viewed until some reviews it and gives it the ok. I know I'll be watching and reverting her on sight and marking the edits as a banned user socking until everyone who ever goes near her knows to just revert her. She is a waste of breath at this point. She's busted and she knows it. Bye, Bye, and good riddence. :) Go back to WR and start complaining how the evil editors have now gotten you indefinitely blocked for making 'good edits'. Isn't that what all socks do, complain about how good they are for the project. Now go away!

Not bad of a song Doc but well....never mind. :) We have to make sure we stay on top of this. Maybe with the flagged rev. we can finally do away with stinky socks forever. I'm smiling, are you!  :) (no need to answer, I know!) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Yes, catch me if you can (and you did not and cannot). LOL!" Sounds like a clear admission to me. Sour grapes, should have stuck to whining at Wikipedia Review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No way it was her - no blatant admissions of guilt, right? ;>. SRQ, you will continue to hypocritically sock, but we'll get ya! You are just so absurdly obvious. Keep sticking to the same articles you haunted forever, and there's no way anyone will ever know. Great plan. See you soon?.. Doc9871 (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well now a change in her MO see here. Lovely huh, not! --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

All of SRQ's obvious socks have the "MYVZW.COM" domain: not the "VERIZON.NET" one. Not really her style - but she may be getting desperate! Keep hunting, however: I'll always know when it's really her (though I'm part of the "bunch of idiots" - what do I know?) Cheers, Crohnie :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying i'm wrong about it being her? I don't think so but then again it's possible as I too am one of the idiots as she says. What a peach she is and boy oh boy am I being nice. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... Are you?

Sounding a little testy there, aren't cha? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit, maybe. We can't just "erase" Valenzuela wholesale from the article because of some crappy recent news snippet that doesn't even mention Bundy. I'm sorry, but there's the way it ought to be... yaddah yaddah yaddah... Doc9871 (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a deletionist either. Just thought you sounded testy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you "testing" me now? Sign your above post, dammit! Don't make me get "medieval" on your ass! Grrrowlll... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

TestY!!! Not TestING!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now, that's it! "Don't Poke The Wiki-Ogres!" (the sign's out front somewhere). Getting all "symantical" with me? You're next on the list, buddy... ;> Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And given my plethora of enemies and naysayers, THAT is supposed to intimidate me?!? Wildhartlivie (talk) (sig added by --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Real Beef"

Doc9871, you are graffiti-ing my user talk page. stay out of my business please, that would be muchly appreciated :)

cheers and have a good day

Chris

Bodybuilding4Life (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Real Beef (talk • contribs) 05:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

check my UTP for more info on my recommendations. cheers bud,

Chris

Bodybuilding4Life (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to say...

...thanks. You know why. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Hey, check this out... I was looking into SRQ's earliest edits, and came across this, which led me to

this (esp. this). Then this and this. Coincidence, I'm sure (the other editor clearly seems to be someone else): but it's kinda creepy, no? Cheers ;> Doc9871 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - This and this is interesting as well... Doc9871 (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Both of those in your PS should be marked as a banned user. I totally believe it's her. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It is kind of creepy. See your email. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, email me if you wouldn't mind so that I stay in the loop. :) Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Bundy

Hey thanks for fixing those markup codes. The sentence "True crime writer Ann Rule, who knew Bundy personally, believes it was around 1969, shortly after a traumatic breakup with his college girlfriend.[5]" which I moved while breaking the WML seems to be referring to the beginning of his killing spree. Lower you will read that according to Ann Rule he travelled to check his birth records back in 1968.

"She ended the relationship after her 1968 graduation and returned to her family home in California, fed up with what she described as Bundy's immaturity and lack of ambition. Thrown into a deep depression by the breakup, Bundy dropped out of college and travelled east. Rule states that, around this time, Bundy decided to visit his birthplace, Burlington, Vermont. There he visited the local records clerk and finally uncovered the truth about his parentage.[15]

After his discovery, Bundy became a more focused and dominant person. Back home in Washington by 1968..."

Note that here we see that he traveled to Vermont and returned after finding his ancestry during 1968.

I am sending this message to avoid an edit war. I will be reverting (hopefully without screwing up the WML).

If I do break it, please do not change the placement of that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.233.233 (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Who are you? You know about reverting and edit wars already? Amazing. Use the sandbox for test edits, please... Doc9871 (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for condescending, I am regular contributor for several years I don't like to log in, it a pain in the ass. This was not a test edit though; did you read what I wrote? 22:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.233.233 (talk)

Thank you for admitting you're not a "newbie". Logging in is a "pain in the ass"? It's not so hard, really. How many years have you been a regular contributor here? Just curious - you weren't vandalizing... Doc9871 (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply

If you want to have fun in your little social club, fine, but don't threaten those of us that actually edit the encyclopedia.—Chowbok ☠ 15:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." "If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." I'm not threatening you, Chowbok: you are meeting the definition to a "T". Why? Doc9871 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not a social club and we do edit. I think you should take to heart what you were told by User:Fences and windows. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that you edit. I was referring to Doc9871, who seems to be here only for the politics. Still, I'd be very curious to see a single time any of you have ever disagreed amongst yourselves on an editing matter.—Chowbok ☠ 19:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You and Jack never seem to disagree - in fact you have followed precisely in his recent wake with "uncanny" precision when he's having problems with WHL; much like a "meat puppet", no? I'm looking closely into your history, and it's fascinating. Do you follow both Jack and WHL, just Jack when he's after WHL, or just WHL? Or is there something else going on? Doc9871 (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been working on the same articles with Jack for years; in fact, despite that we're both long-timers here I don't think we ever talked until maybe a month ago. Besides, we did disagree, on the deletion of WHL's attack page. I see WHL/Pinkadelica/Rossrs/LaVidaLoca chats going back to at least 2008. That said, go ahead and call me a meat-puppet if you want, I don't really care.—Chowbok ☠ 20:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You haven't worked on any article that Jack has for years? What the heck are you talking about - is this a joke? Some are hours apart on the same day [3][4][5]. Do you mean you used to edit the same articles years ago (but never met), stopped, and just recently have started editing the same articles? Clarify what you mean, please... Doc9871 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I was unclear. You are attempting to compare my editing relationship with Jack to WHL with Rossrs, et. al. I was pointing out that it is an inapt comparison in that while WHL has IMO acted in collusion with the same small group of editors for at least a couple years, Jack and I only just started having edits in common. Does that make more sense?—Chowbok ☠ 21:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It does make more sense, thanks. The common thing about the edits is WHL, as seen from your May 4 post here. And Jack[6], "Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia." Is that what I've been doing to you or Chowbok? Hardly. This week for the RfC? Can't wait... Doc9871 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So nice, we said it twice

What I thought was so amusing about it was that not just you, but also another editor did the same thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to f@$kin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how?" ;P Doc9871 (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? OK." Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and also §. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

you are not welcome on my talk page

bzzt. don't assume whom I was quoting. Jack Merridew 10:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad. Couldn't have possibli been that episode. I mean, possibly. That's the first thing that's ever gone wrong... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issue

Hi, I just got a note that my IP (71.171.109.42) is accused of being an apparently banned user, Skagit-something or other. In any case, I can assure you am me and not that person, and that I've got a long history here (though I disappeared for a while) that can be verified. --み使い Mitsukai 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If I was in error, please feel free to remove the tag from your Userpage - the Talkpage entry could be kept as a record if you chose to do so. I really only corrected the original tag - wasn't my call to begin with, but, again, please remove the tag from your Userpage at your leisure. Happy editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(I removed another rude edit from her that she posted here.) I hope it's ok. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, check out Wildhartlivie's talk page. She is now retired so I guess everything is done. The RFC just became useless as far as I'm concerned. They wanted her gone, and now she is. I wonder who the next victim is going to be. Also look at my history of my talk page for a lovely, not, comment from Skagit. She of course used a roamng IP to attack again. I deleted it which is why you need to look in history. I am real sick of all of this to be honest and I am done with it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Doc, SkagitRiverQueen left a rude message so I deleted it. You can find it in your history if you are interested. I marked the IP too. Also, I'm trying to see if she can be stopped so I posted here to ask. If you or any of your lurkers care to comment feel free. I hope it was ok to delete from your talk page. Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've re-marked the IP's: I find it better to use this for the talk page (then sign it), then create and tag the user page with the one you used. Cheers, Crohnie ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal?

Yep Doc! But I a in SUPERB company! ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The banned and "indeffed" SRQ is undoubtedly still at it[7]. These "redhead" comments are slightly disturbing - "ginger-bashing" at the very best? ;P I would like to create the category "Confirmed Sockpuppets of SkagitRiverQueen", but I don't know exactly which IP's that can be proved through behavior (since the list keeps growing). I think 99% of them, but that's just me. Sabra2 and UrbanCowboy12 for sure - can I add the appropriate templates to the obvious IP's? It's all academic at this point, but it should be noted, as the socking has not stopped... Doc9871 (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUTING? Not in the slightest! Try this on for size: "Before I do anything drastically redheaded ;-)" -> (refactored ),(from your own talk page DummyDoc9871) on 2 June 2010 at 21:32. LOL! Yep! Idiots, complete idiots! <|8~P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.160.120.56 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hypocritically socking after filing those weak SPI's against WHL - that's not too smart. We may be "idiots, complete idiots", but we don't have to resort to what you're doing to edit here. Some people handle rejection better than others. Happy trails, Skag... Doc9871 (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the conversation here. This is the preferred way to handle stinky socks like this which you know. Right now it does no good talk to her. She is just the usual troll and you need to delete her not encourage this behavior, please. It's offensive and you know it is. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

She's clearly not going to stop socking, and erasing her posts to my talk page isn't going to discourage her from doing so - I do appreciate your concerns, however. Finding her socks and having them "dealt" with has become a small hobby for me now - she knows very well we can't block all the Verizon IP's, and she is using this to her "advantage". We can, however, easily use her obvious behavioral pattern to tag 'em (and bag 'em where possible). Cheers, Crohnie :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok fair enough but let's not let her break policies like outing since the editor has made it clear she no longer wants to be called by that name. I did refactor that part out. I wish she would just get bored. Oh well, I guess she enjoys being a useless sock these days and after all the crap she said about socks in the past, what a hypocrite she is. LOL! --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A banned editor cannot break policy when they've lost their right to edit here in the first place. I fully agree with WP:DENY - but I erase nothing from my talk page, and I truly encourage her responses here (for additional behavioral evidence). Cheers, Crohnie :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok if that's how you want it I will honor your wishes. Please refactor anything like the outing she did above ok? That wouldn make me happy I guess.

Another one to tag and bag!

Hi, here's another on for you to tag here. Happy trails, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your suspicions are wrong

You wrote:

I think you're a single-purpose account sock, 205.250.67.46. Care to "fess up"? You know way, way too much to be a user that just started editing yesterday, and your sole focus is clear. What are your other accounts, please? Doc9871 (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your suspicions are poorly founded and wrong. It is most disturbing that, in the face of yet another instance of Miesianiacal's habitual edit-warring, rather than showing concern about that misbehaviour of his, you throw these sorts of accusations about, in his support. -- 205.250.67.46 (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not supporting his behavior - that's irrelevant, as I'm uninvolved until now. You are clearly not a new user: are you telling me that you are? You seem to be quite familiar with this editor, and you're quite concerned about him, obviously. What other accounts have you used? A simple question, really... Doc9871 (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like support to me. However, there is no sock-puppet issue connected with me. In particular, I have no connection with the Mr. (or Ms.) 65.xx... You've neither need nor entitlement to know more about me than that, and if you think I'm going to submit to your rude interrogation then you must think again. -- 205.250.67.46 (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A typical response. Not even an, "I've been editing as an IP for years but haven't bothered registering"? How did you know about "POV editorialising" for your very first edit? Quack! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Two other IPs he's known to have used are 205.250.66.41 (talk · contribs) and 205.250.72.1 (talk · contribs). I suspect, though, he's edited here before using those addresses. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Declining my request for protection.

I am still very upset re: the uncivil treat ment I got night before last from the Kiwi. Not only was she biting the newcomer in this venue her remarks were based on the fact that she(?) did not review the article properly as I stated. The more I thinnk about it, the more redheaded i get. With very little effort in reviewing the article, after the block was removed, the following two edits were made: [8]

"latest news...recent evidence released on ryan secrest having sex with a transgendered woman!

[9] This was on ONE day following the lift of block. Is there any recourse? Despite her cries, she obviously only took a cursory look and referred to edits I was not even talking about! What now, I defer to yo # 1 Doc. I have actually lost sleep over this, injustice tends to do that to me! DocOfSoc (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC) if she had actually READ the article she would have found:

• For Teh Lulz as Himself
• How I Impregnated Eric Bauman as Himself

which had been missed before.

[10]DocOfSoc (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

More: [11] DocOfSoc (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Beatle Song from Ferris Buellar Parade 0:-)

DocOfSoc You said that what I said was not a great idea. The SHE said a very nice comment AND I got an e-mail from you know whom that was super nice, sooo I figgered a clean start was better. Got it Doc #1??  ;-) Fondly....DocOfSoc (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What I meant to say is" Does that clear it up for you and I am truly sorry if you feel chuffed! xoxo OH , and point made!DocOfSoc (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Come on, now shake it up baby, now! (Shake it up, baby) Twist and shout!" You remove my posts again and I'll "moidalize" you! Get it? Got it? Good... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK

Um, thanks for chiming in, I guess. Are you familiar with that guy's history? I looked it up, a bit. The man's a nasty piece of work, and he appears to enjoy bullying other editors. He's been doing it for years. He'll continue to do it. Behavior like that does drive off editors, I'm sure. Does that not bother you? It bothers me. I could have been the one to finally stop him, maybe. I spit the bit. Why shouldn't I feel guilty about that? Herostratus (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you giving up seemingly because of this failed report? You're sounding bitter about it, and that's not going to help anything. He can't make you quit - he's just another editor. I'll familiarize myself with his history, but the WQA was closed: to have to have the last word is therefore pointless. There are always other battles out there: that's all I'm saying. Cheers, Herostratus, and happy editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"The man's a nasty piece of work, and he appears to enjoy bullying other editors." Really? In which alternate universe does that not come under the heading of a personal attack? Malleus Fatuorum 10:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hey, I didn't say it: and I really can't argue with your logic there at all. That thread really needed to be closed - I'll bet there will be another one around the corner, however. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you did say it; I was only replying here because this is where Herostratus said it. I expect there will be other WQA reports, but c'est la vie here on wikipedia. I don't know how far you've got in investigating my nasty history, but have you noticed that I've never initiated a WQA against another editor? Do you believe that's because everyone has been unfailingly polite to me during my four years here? I can assure you it's not. Malleus Fatuorum 10:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not planning on deeply investigating your history - you should note that I've agreed with your position on that particular thread. I'd rather go after disruptive socks than a 4-year vet with almost 80,000 edits: too much work to go through your past! ;P Cheers, Malleus! :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the civility police aren't here to see it, it's like a tree falling over when no one's around. Quite frankly it seems that Herosdtratus is doing a good job himself of bullying other editors. Nev1 (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Do a search of the user name (s) at SPI. This is ringing a little bell for me but I'm not sure on who it is. I want to say User:Excuseme99 who has just got busted with a few alternate sock accounts but not sure. HTH. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Doc, I have sent you a personal email that has nothing to do with this project. I just need to chat with someone. Please take a look when you get the time, Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I will - thanks :> Doc9871 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

OKC Thunder Article AN post

I changed your 'resolved' comment to a more descriptive one (You'd used 'wrong venue' - assume it was a c&p from the one above - which did not seem to fit outcome) - do change it again if you feel it's not correct. Exxolon (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Naw - it's definitely cool (actually better) :> I like to "steer" them away from this board when it's clear they've "wandered down the hall". Good edit, Exxolon! Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The term blatant vandalism has evolved somewhat of a double meaning on Wikipedia thanks to Template:blatantvandal, and due to this ambiguity I find the term "simple" or "obvious" vandalism much more informative than the term blatant vandalism when explaining the idea to other editors. "Blatant vandalism" is used in discussion to mean either edits that cannot be mistaken as anything but vandalism, or egregious vandalism deserving of an immediate final warning. WP:ROLLBACK uses the word in the former sense, but if it is understood in the latter sense it is a significantly more restrictive guideline, so I avoid using the term for the sake of clarity.
Thank you for the compliment, by the way. --erachima talk 10:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! (and Thank You!) With some things I am cautious (like with using Rollback): with others... not so cautious (no diff necessary). Cheers, erachima! Doc9871 (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions

This is a copy of what I left on Tim's page: [12] reverted last NPOV edit By Smackbot?, who is Rich? Why would it be edited to the vandal version? Is there some connection? What am I missing? Will cc this to Doc#1 ;-) Namaste....DocOfSoc (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure who "Rich" is, either(?) I think Tim tried to revert back to before where SRQ came along, but made a slight mistake by going to the wrong version. As for a "connection"... you're getting "squirrelly" on me again, aren't you? Leave the "conspiracy theories" to me, please... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

NOT squirrelly, just redheaded ;-) I went to Smackbot's page and it directed me to ""This user account is a bot operated by Rich Farmbrough." I have received an e-mail from Kelly telling me she has "Friends" watching and she is totally innocent! Conspiracy theories? Hence, the connextion question?? AS it says on my user page: You are not paranoid if they are REALLY out to get ya!. xoxo ;-p DocOfSoc (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

An e-mail from whom, now? E-mail me a copy of it (if you dare)... :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

An email from HER! I will find it later. it's 4:30 AM. Bedtime! ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Lawford

Doc, your edit is fine - to be honest I wasn't quite sure what to do with the syntax, but Christopher Lawford has carved out a pretty interesting career himself and I thought he should be mentioned. I like your solution better! Take care - Themoodyblue (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Al Pacino

Hi, if you get time would you check out this new rewrite of the lead? I have to admit I am too tired and my vision is given me trouble due to predisone use (which I will get fixed this month with new glasses finally). Reading it looks like errors have been introduced plus I don't think WP:Lead is being followed. I'm ending for the day I think. I know you have this on your watchlist, I think you do, I hope you do :). Anyways, if you get time, would you please see if I am correct or not. If I'm wrong just leave it as it is. But I don't think the The Godfather was his break through for becoming a star. Granted he got an award but he was a star enough to say no I'm not going to collect my award type situation. Ok I know you can tell I'm too tired now. Thanks for any help you care to offer, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Al's not on my watchlist, but he is now. I'll have to disagree on The Godfather not being his "breakthough" role: he had only one lead role prior to it[13]. As part of one of the greatest films of all time, Pacino became "Pacino". I'll look into it further, dear: I hope all is well. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Doc #1 and Al was born in the Bronx, BTW. He also didn't get his academy award until "Scent of a Woman" after seven nominations. :-) xoxo DocOfSoc (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Get him a drink. Don't be afraid, Carlo. Come on, you think I'd make my sister a widow? I'm Godfather to your son." ;P Doc9871 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, you both made me smile and I'm still on my first cup for the morning. I won't be here much today, RL things to do with Mom. I appreciate you looking for me. I just get to a point where I can't focus my thoughts and that's when I know my day is over. Well that and some other things. I really did think that Pacino was on your watch though, I swear I thought I saw you there. Oh well, yesterday seems to be my day for errors.  :) Talk to you both soon I'm sure :), --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Drink. Drink. No, you're out of the family business, that's your punishment. You're finished" DocOfSoc (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting lectures from a banned user :)

Hi, I marked the IP because it's definitely her. See the contributions and the edit summaries and you will come to the same conclusion here. I marked it so it shows up in the list of accounts she has used in case she has the nerve to try to return anytime soon from her indefinite ban. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh). I dealt with it, but she'll be back for sure. She isn't even attempting to deny it's her in the more recent edit summaries, but puts the "good of the project" ahead of the fact that she is banned. She'll be socking forever - this seems obvious. Great... Doc9871 (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Good grief![14] SRQ will never get it: "The measure of a site ban is that even if the user were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." What's not to understand? Doc9871 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I'm sure you know this already, but "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule: Reverting actions performed by banned users." Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work Doc #1 :) and yes I'm aware of this part of 3rr. She keeps putting that comment about us being idiots thinking it's her, now who do you think she is trying to blame her socking on?  :) By the way, that's sarcasm, not a serious question. :) Check your email if you haven't already. Thanks, good you followed up on this since I totally missed it because I got involved in other conversations in two other articles. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

		The Outlaw Halo Award
		TY for being YOU!xoxoDocOfSoc (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC) (about the award)

Thanks, Doc#2! I was re-reading the entire WP Review thread SRQ filed back in March[15]: scary stuff. Amazing how she blames you and everyone else for her problems editing here. They didn't seem too responsive over there, esp. after she started attacking them. Then again, I'm no "Sherlock Holmes". <|8~P Cheers, DocOfSoc... Doc9871 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you were Sherlock Holmes (LOL), you would find where she bit the newbie and said I was ridiculous for claiming she was stalking me. She defamed me and they believed her. The same argument they turned inside out later! I asked for help many times and only Seaphoto jumped in. When it got really bad, BlackKite did his thing, thank God. If I wasn't so darn stubborn, I woulda been long gone! Ya'll are a breath of fresh air! Namaste....DocOfSoc (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah! You think I couldn't find it (so many newbie IP's were bitten on CKB)? I could easily dig up diffs to have myself blocked for my many past ill-advised comments (gotta learn somehow, right?) You live, you learn. Some of us do, at least (to one degree or another). Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Good and proper barnstar for you Doc #1. To Doc #2, ( I love this Doc # stuff, it's kind of fun!) Don't feel bad about how you kept responding to her behavior. So did we, I'm sad to say. It took a long time to show how disruptive she was and it was very frustrating for a lot of editors at the time. I'm glad you stuck it out and continued to be an editor. You still have a lot to learn about the project but you do try very hard and you do a lot of good. Remember we all make mistakes, mistakes can be easily fixed though, but we are all human so errors do occur. Keep reading the policy pages and learning more. I am starting to reread things myself because my memory isn't that good plus policies and guidelines change. So it's always good to take a fresh look at things. Keep up the good work and don't let the socking get you down. Oh, did you see my rsponse to your email? Just curious, (disclaimer:this email was about persoal things, not about the project.) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at my e-mail tonight - will respond :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Today I settled all Family business, so don't tell me you're innocent, Carlo." Grin DocOfSoc (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"That's right, break it all you spoiled guinea brat! Break it all!!! Now clean it up!!!" ;. Doc9871 (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A new way to accuse of ownership

Hi, it's funny and weird but I've been accused of ownership with an article that the editor admits I've never edited before. :) Yet he keeps claiming this in multiple places. I know ownership is always the last stop accusation when all else has failed at the article but to make a claim against someone about having ownership issues to an article never touched is the strangest thing I've see in a long time. You can see it and the reasoning at WP:BLPN, here and the user's page where I politely asked him/her to strike the comments. I think this is funny. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hehee! "Ownership" accusations are some of the lamest and ill-founded I've seen. I've seen editors (who shall remain nameless) with over half their total (considerable) edits to one article: that have never been accused of this. In my tiny mind, accusing someone of WP:OWN is more often than not "sour grapes" trolling. Work with consensus, I say. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea but this time the editor making the accusation is accusing someone, me, who hasn't touched the article. It's staight out weird if you ask me and a personal attack to make it look like what I am saying is less important. Take a look at the difs I gave you. :) You won't find me at the Roman Polanski article. It's not even on my watchlist. Like is said, weird. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

IPs on Dawn Wells

I have blocked the IP used to evade for a week and extended the original one's block to the end of the month. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw it - sweet. I'm going to look into a certain someone's behavior (who shall remain nameless for now) a little more closely: don't like this whole Dawn Wells affair at all. It reeks, frankly. We'll see. Cheers, Daniel :> Doc9871 (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there enough for a CU to look for sleepers or any other accounts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No CU, I think (yet?). We'll see what's dug up: it's all there. Should know soon. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok I have to ask, could this be her at home or at work? The lectures sounds oh some much luck her, which is why I have to ask.  :) Be well, seriously, now I'm done. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Dawn Wells IP's are SRQ, BTW. It's someone else: as is most likely the other you just mentioned. The lecture does look like SRQ's "tone" (good call), but the interests (game shows, wrestling, etc.) and proliferation of edits for this user seem a bit off. The IP is certainly going after Active Banana, that's for sure. We'll see... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Doc9871, good to meet you; I replied to your question at my own talk page. So you're trying to track down those two IPs? I noticed the first user who got the discussion going was blocked and then the block extended. I hope someday that IP gets a username; they seem intelligent and could be productive. The second IP sounded a little miffed at me but I hope I welcomed them appropriately at their page. This one doesn't sound like a future editor. Other than that I didn't think anything "stinks". Feel free to contact me if I can help in any way. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) I didn't think the IP's at Dawn Wells was her either just so you know. If you haven't looked through the archives it might be helpful to you. As for the other, she maybe going to other sections to do things where she thinks she won't be seen. You are right though, whoever it is really doesn't like the editor Active Banana. I look forward to seeing what you turn up next. Please keep me informed, email is always open to you as you know. You've been doing real good at protecting the project with all you've been doing. I'll be watching as usual and will email anything I'm not sure about. I would love for you to answer one of my emails about how to tell something. Sorry, but I don't want to go into details here. I'm trying to learn some things. :) Be well Doc #1.

@ Prhartcom The problem I have with what you call an essay is that soapboxing like that is not allowed which is why I took it to Fences and windows to begin with. I am pleased though that a good discussion came out of my discussion there. It was nice to see everyone working together to achieve a consensus. I wish is was always like that. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It was nice to achieve that new consensus over there. As you both know, that was 180 from what had been happening before. And it wasn't a discussion with everyone; we stopped hearing from two of the (IMO most troublesome) users that most vigorously prevented this true information from being added to the article in the past. Crohnie, I think that was right after you brought the matter up to Fences; Thanks for that! (Hey, I have a question for you over at your talk page.) Doc, let me know if I can do anything more to help you "learn some things". Cheers to you both, —Prhartcom (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you there?

Need your help. Have been chastised and mocked buy another admin with a lack of good faith IMO. In the City of Bell article. Waiting for your reply. Will CC to Cronhie and another admin. DocOfSoc (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, this is no longer a concern. Everything got worked out and the article got improved with another new article started. I saw the very beginning but I had to leave for a doctor's appointment so I didn't help much but Doc #2 and Will Beback did a real good job. Call this one a success since I think everyone ended up feeling ok when all was done. :) Just thought you should know, take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, in case you didn't realize it, this was only blocked for a week for disruption not socking. Tomorow is day 7. This needs indef for being a sock as you know. I leave it to your very capable hands. :) Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC) ignore thinking of the wrong thing. Make note of this when reading at home too. Sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc9871. You have new messages at Elektrik Shoos's talk page.
Message added 10:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks...

...for the barnstar and your kind words :) - glad it's gotten implemented, it was only fair to bring it in line with all the other boards. Exxolon (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You know what we should really thank? A random user's totally unrelated case, like User:NatDemUK (he's still not banned, I believe). A small change, but the correct one. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Re. WQA Report

Hey Doc. Thanks for the feedback. It's the most constructive and useful advice so far. I almost considered walking away and leaving this project. I guess your words have made me reconsider. Thanks again. gonads³ 17:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Anytime! I'm glad to see you're going to stay; lots of people stay that don't even deserve to be here (esp. vandals and the like). As a random "talk page stalker", I may drop in sometime if someone's hassling you. Cheers, and Happy Editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Need your wisdom

Please check this out [16]bottom of page. Young Mr. Canada and I disagree on adjectives , & esp. OUR president, not his. Taking this frustrated redhead to bed. Nmaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are quite the "firecracker", Doc#2. You can handle this one: I'm sure of it. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Out damn'd spot, out I say! What will these hands ne'er be clean? "  ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes."  ;> Doc9871 (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned due to it's removal from the Morrison article, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. A free image was added to the article in March 2010 that better illustrates what happened in Miami, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page and here. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Could use your help

Hi, I've never worked with redirects and really don't feel up to reading about it right now to be honest. Would you mind fixing this redirect? The redirect redirects back to the same article. Monday I get my eyes checked and hopefully I will get some new glasses so I can see better. Prednisone is a nasty drug which I was on for over three weeks, starting at a very high level, after my surgery and then again the same thing occurred for my March hospitalization. I had to wait three months or so to see if my sight returned to what it was prior to the medication. Unfortunately it hasn't so I am having a hard time with reading and my eyes get tired so easily. Well I'm babbling, as normal. If you get a chance would you mind helping me out with this redirect problem? Thanks, hope all is well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Crohnie! The redirect seems fine to me: the difference is the parenthesis around the word "series". "The Sims series" redirects to "The Sims (series)". Just punctuation, really. Hope you are feeling well - let me know what's up w/you. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay, I totally forgot about this. :) Thanks for you opinion, I'll be in touch for sure, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I think the RFC discussion going on here may be of interest. If not please just ignore. I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hi, please check you email and respond when you can. Disclosure, this has nothing at all to do with any articles contents nor any talk pages contents. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Jimmy McDaniels"

Is it? *looks* Sure enough. Looks like the third diff that I originally referenced (I just quoted diffs posted above) was coded a little, shall we say, "wonky". Thanks for the catch. I've updated the diff. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Docter!

I have a question. What if someone changes IP (kinda like me) and vandalises like the sound of ya momma f**king, how would a moderator dude block the "guys" ... I mean there's no way i can see. Ya can continue blocking but ya'll never stop the guy cause his IP always changes? So how do the dudes here block. BTW, I was blocked 3 times already, but hey presto! I moved IP's. So tell me why I need to be afraid ... Or the consequences on WIkipedia could be bad Muahahahaha! Na just kidding mate. So how to the moderators block changing IP's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.41.17 (talk • contribs)

Changing IPs is a classic tactic socks and vandals use to "fight the system". How can you block them all? You can't (how ingenious of disruptive editors to consider this). Who were you blocked three times as, if you don't mind me asking? Not that you're going to tell me. Behavior can reveal a lot, but not everything. No cheers for you, "sock-boy"... Doc9871 (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - You're in Australia using Optus Internet (In Sydney, possibly?), and the articles you edit and the editors you harass can give you away. You can hop IPs all day - plenty do. No more advice for you, except, "Don't sock"... Doc9871 (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. SO I can't be blocked? But if I hop IP's what the ? So nothing will happen? I don't want to sock but you say as long as I vandalise, I'll get away it. So how come Wikipedia is active. If such vandals get together, they can do wonders and be in the Trols Hall of Fame for decades and centuries to come ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.27.214 (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What an illustrious goal: "Trols Hall of Fame". Your IP edits can be reverted on sight if you are a banned user, BTW. I'm "feeding" you right now, but I don't mind that much. What else do you think should be changed about WP? I'm happy to lend an ear... Doc9871 (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAHAHA you're funny.. Na seriously dude. I'm reallyyyyyyy drunknnnk but ya're funny! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.202.2 (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Drinking and editing can be "problematic", shall we say. But, the more you talk, the easier it is to figure you out. You're starting to mildly irritate me - but you can keep commenting here if you want to. No one is "untouchable", and you're hardly the first to discover dynamic IPs. You're a disruptive sock, probably of an indefinitely blocked user. You know it, and I know it. See WP:SILVERLOCK. That's most likely the next step, and it's unfortunate for IP contributors who actually want to positively edit the articles and talk pages that you are disrupting. Your pestering has become tiresome now. Disappear and "sleep it off"... Doc9871 (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a respected editor on Wikipedia. You're obviously not gonna belive me, but I'm someone with over 5000 edits. And I'm still active (no-one would even think for a moment that this is me.I mess up my spelling and Wiki syntax on purpose to make it look less believable) I was just a bit drunk last week (my mates introduced me to drinking) so yeah ... Uuuum. I vandalised? But my question is this and I'll stop bothering you if you just answer it (sorry mate, I understand that you're a bit cranky about this. other dudes just ignore me so I really appreciate your politeness): Is it possible to block someone who can continually change his IP address? The "block" is key here. Well, is it? I'm getting blocked for weeks to months but eer ... I just move on so to speak to a new IP? OK, that's the last you'll hear from me Doc. Best of luck in the future and I hope you succeed in life. You're a kind fella and kindness goes a long way. I just wanted to see how people would react to vandalism. I'll get back to my usual constructive editing with my actual account now and we can forget this. But just please answer my question. Thanks mate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.9.174 (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, your little "vandalism experiment" has gotten some attention[17]. Watch the thread on that page, and we'll learn more about possible range blocks together. I'm not "cranky", so much - but who are you, really? C'mon - you can tell me! It'll be "our little secret". It's possible to not only block, but WP:BAN someone who continually changes IPs, and I've been a part of a case or two. You don't have to leave me alone, but the more you disrupt WP pages, the more interested I become in discovering who you truly are. Don't... sock... Doc9871 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya I prepared a responds to ya but someone blocked me midway. So I'l keep it short. I'm tooooooo drunk to care! I'm Tango, ya know. It'll be our li'll secret. Ya dudes think I'm in Ingland but actually I'm in Aus, so ya'll never know! It'll be our lile secret ai? Shuuuush! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.246.116 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

IP vandal lay off the booze and stop attacking peoples talkpages--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm tooooooooood rruuunk to giva damn. Maybe that's what guys mean by don't drink . Yeaah! But maybe I'll care later. But now, blllloooooooooooooovl awak! YAYAYHAY. I wanna bear. Why donna give mea bear!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.246.116 (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

you want a bear? I'm not sure we can get a bear sir the zoo won't let us--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I wanna beeeeeeeeeeeeeer!!!!! Why wanna you give ma beeeeeeeeeeer? Wuauahua! I wanna my momma! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.252.196 (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree Doc9871 can't we use the rangeblock to block all his IP adresses? (i think this is his last one though haven't seen any other IPs posting drunkern ramblings)--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Hi I posted an apology on the noticeboard but I'll do so again here. I regret my actions yesterday, I was really drunk, it wasn't me, and I hope that that isn't a representative of who I really am. I can understand if you block me, I've been really disruptive, but I promise I'll stay away from the pubs (at least until next sat. :) don't worry I'll not bring my laptops) . I'm a nice bloke really. Sorry again. The peer pressure of my mates really got the better of me when I was drunk. BUt those blokes aren't the right ones to be messing with as I realised yesterday. Again sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.245.87 (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"The quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth like the rain upon the gentel place beneath: it is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes..."  ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and the reason I was at the pubs yesterday is because 'twas the federal election day of Australia. Nice to have the odd drink with your mates on such big ocasions. BTW, are you the same guy as DocofSoc? Your names are so similar ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.29.6 (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... not. She's a "she", and there are a couple of editors with "Doc" in their names[18]. A CU could assuage your fears in a heartbeat, but I wouldn't bother one without something reasonably substantial...

Okay: here's the deal. I advised you to register, and to stick with it - you don't have to, of course. I utterly detest IP hopping. You've edited this page with several different IP's, and I am asking (firmly) you to stop doing that. I told you that you were welcome to keep commenting here, but not if you don't register as an editor. Most responsible editors would frown on me for even keeping your drunken ramblings from last night here, and for continuing to discuss this with you. Apology accepted. Don't wear my patience any thinner, please. I'm sure you're a good guy in RL, and as you surmised, I also have a "kind" streak". I can also be a vicious, vicious bastard. Good luck to you, and please don't post here again from another, different IP. You'll be the first I've ever deleted if you do. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

well said. to IP user: heed what Doc #1 says. he means it. i know. DocOfSoc (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dante8

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dante8 Thought you should know. - Schrandit (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Schrandit! I'll "get a comment together" to put there. The topics being edited are so "red-flag" to me: it's scary. She vowed never to stop editing WP (and keeps socking, most recently "obviously" here). This should be interesting. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Guinea Pig Warrior

Hi Doc. I noticed your comments at User_talk:Guinea_pig_warrior#Block_evasion about starting a SPI if he did it again. Unfortunately only a few hours after your post he made more edits under another IP. His first step was to continue the edit war and then decided to leave this lovely message on the talk page of an administrator. Jevansen (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jevansen! Thanks for bringing this to me. On one hand, this IP geolocates to Delaware[19], which would certainly exclude a connection to the Australian IP... but on the other hand, it's run by "AnchorFree",which can be used on an iphone - ugh. Don't know much about them, but it looks "bad" for catching socks/vandals. The behavior of the IP is looking obvious (if not a "copycat/hater" of Fav). I'm okay at the behavior part, but not the technical part - I have to inquire about this before a SPI filing. No hurry: the more anyone socks, the easier it will eventually be to prove who it is, even with IP-hopping. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't actually have to hat that...

It's worth having that discussion openly every now and then, so that people unfamiliar with community bans can be informed. It's up to you if you want to hat it, but I don't think it was off topic per se - meta-questions about policy and process and precedent are almost always on topic.

Anyways, have a good night... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, for your information, the proper way to do a hat is:

{{hat|note}}

(stuff)

{{hab}}

What you did, with a {{/hat}} doesn't work. You closed the entire bottom of the page by accident...

No worries. Was easy to spot and fix. Just try not to do it again 8-)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that - eep. Many thanks for fixing it; I immediately saw I fucked up and was scrambling to undo it when hit with e/c. I felt I had "stopped" the discussion with the simple query, but I think you're right about removing the hat. Maybe if the discussion continues I will (or you can - I don't mind) Thanks again, George! Doc9871 (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

3RR Report

Thanks - I've had a go at correcting it, but may have done it wrong - not something I often have to do, thankfully. Have a look at what I've done, and if it's still wrong, get back to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks all good! And even better: it does prove that a 3RR violation happened (this guy again - I remember him now). Glad this report won't get "tanked". :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Doc #1

I do trust you. Going to bed. I lost sleep over all this crap. More later xoxo DocOfSoc (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: I Just wanted to say "in person" that this image needs to be overseen by a non-involved admin as the IfD was closed as "no-consensus". I feel there needs to be a wider view for this because you and I have discussed it and you know how I feel and I know how you feel. I will not rehash everyhting but the {{dfu}} tag is hopefully going to allow someone other than you or I to objectively look at the image, the article, the other discussions and decide what to do. I informed the closing admin I had re-tagged the image but if they felt it should go to a deletion review to remove the tag and let me know and I will take it. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We've both gone to Fastily's talk page. FFD is watched by many uninvolved, objective admins, and the result was what it was. No editor has been this aggressive in trying to delete this image, and I'm really starting to wonder if you're taking this farther than you should. There's lots of images out there, Soundvisions1, and you are focusing on this too much. Jus' sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I deal with a lot of images all the time - it is my main "thing" here. I find, I research, I tag, I watch, I check back and do more research if needed. You've engaged me in more conversation than most and that takes up a lot of my time to respond which takes away me dealing with other images. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. My engaging you in conversation is no excuse for not moving on here... Doc9871 (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Update - I think one way to best reinforce the image's place here is by expanding the "Miami Incident" section of the article to understand and appreciate its historical significance. It is wholly inadequate as it is, that much is certain. I didn't know that the incident caused the rest of their tour to be canceled, or that it sparked "decency" gatherings across the country (with big-name entertainers involved), or that the FBI issued a fugitive warrant for him. It will all be in the article - but, dang! It's a lot of work, esp. using more than one source. I've got some more researching and writing ahead of me... Yay!. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

New Section (Needs a quote)

Hello, Doc9871. You have new messages at DocOfSoc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		For your recent assistance responding to the request I left on someone else's talk page, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. DocOfSoc (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fie, my lord, fie! A soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to accompt? ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands." ;> Doc9871 (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"What, will these hands ne'er be clean?" ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Go to, go to; you have known what you should not." Doc9871 (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

""God's benison go with you, and with those That would make good of bad, and friends of foes!" Good nite Milove! DocOfSoc (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Good night, good doctor."

Exeunt
Doc9871 (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

bleac is for the poultry

care to read/google more about bleach+poultry. before leaving smartass useless coment? bleach is not a topical solution to cure anything! maybe to bleach hair or anal. I think you may need the second. 71.99.92.124 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC) VERIZON INTERNET SERVICES INC

"Be bloody, bold, and resolute! Laugh to scorn The pow'r of man, for none of woman born Shall harm Macbeth." DocOfSoc (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This one will be "untimely ripped" ;> @IP above: I have no idea what you are referring to. Clarify with WP:DIFFS, or kindly disappear... Doc9871 (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Out, out brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury Signifying nothing." My deepest Thanks. You are #1 DocOfSoc (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

ILuvAMRadio's unblock request

Thanks for your comments on this. After following up your links at User talk:ILuvAMRadio and doing a little further research I am now reasonably confident you are right, so I will decline the unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, James! It's her. WP can put me "in the sling" if needed (heh). Reports will be "expanded"... Doc9871 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

No wonder I got a conflict. Cool! Anyway, some backup material. I am running this by you as requested, instead of posting on sock puppet page. Feel free to copy and paste as needed.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is a sockpuppet of SRQ. She magically appeared a couple days after the block was removed on the Bouley article. She refers to him familiarly as "Karel" (twice) on his user page. A new user would have most likely said Bouley.

11:33, 24 July 2010 TFOWR (talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by DocOfSoc; (WP:DENY. I've got a copy, I can email it to interested parties. Insulting remarks to both myself and "Karel". After two years of unrelenting abuse and biting the newbie, by SRQ, I am very familiar with even her most cryptic comments. See this post:[20] There is more, and diffs can be provided. Sincerely, DocOfSoc (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

pouting "My way of life Is fallen into the sere, the yellow leaf; And that which should accompany old age"DocOfSoc (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"I’ll fight till from my bones my flesh be hacked. Give me my armor." Doc9871 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted the good news first but I love you anyway Good Warrior! Godspeed! DocOfSoc (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"More is thy due than more than all can pay."  ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

has passed you the WikiJoint! WikiJoints promote... uh... promote... help with... do... wiki... something... yeah... uh, what was I saying? WikiJoints help promote, uh, wiki stuff...and help with...huh?

Holiday?

Romeo, oh Romeo, where art thou? Wait a minute, what IS your name? JOYously yours, DocOfSoc (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You

Please apologise for your words here. They are offensive on a number of levels. Tisk tisk tisk. Ceoil (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 95.2 hours. Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No apologies for pointing out that it's "peer-reviewed" and not "pier-reviewed", or "whether" instead of "weather". Happy editing :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I don't quite get what was wrong in that post that you commented. Were you commenting to me or to the other dude? (LAz17 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)).

Nothing was wrong with it. Ceoil was hopefully being sarcastic, because, "I doubt you have a self reflective bone." is pretty far off. Ceoil, I'm not "in charge" of WP (or even an admin). Trust me, you don't want me to focus on comments you have made (that were actually deserving of an "apology"): I will find them. Cheers, LAz17 :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I though were being a patronising prick, making fun of a person whoes first language is not English. Nothing to say about the substance of the argument, you only had a cheap shot in you. Ceoil (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You are starting to walk a dangerous line in civility, Ceoil. Please watch what you say: and head back to the discussion, as I recommended there. Please don't take this route ("patronising prick"? Really?): and undoing this[21] doesn't change a thing. Now be a chap and move along. And good luck... Doc9871 (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Again no idea about substance. Patronising, telling me the rules. be a chap, O fuck off. Rather than hide behind civility you should grow some stones and realise that if you put people down out of hand, youll get some back, and rightly so. Ceoil (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You know the rules well, apparently[22]. What do you want, exactly? You want to tell me the rules? Tell me to "fuck off"? I've never "got some back" - you sure know me... Doc9871 (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I said what I had to say. After that it was just arguing bullshit with an idiot. Whats your excuse. Ceoil (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If by "bullshit", you means "rules": create an anarchist wiki with no rules. And have a super happy day! :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Oops! I forgot about WP:IAR. I guess this could be made into an anarchist wiki: start here... Doc9871 (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, your fucked up, no self awarness. Word of advice, if on on Balkan disputes the best you are capable of is bitching about seplling, dont bother running for admin. Because I'll crucify you. Really. Ceoil (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Who said I was running for admin? You couldn't pay me enough, "dude". As for you "crucifying" me: hardly worried. I can be "bitching about seplling" right here: at least learn to spell. It's "You're fucked up", and "awareness". Really... Doc9871 (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You are focused, unrepentant, and on message, I'll give you that. This is going no where, you have no idea how offensive you post was, and I cant be bother to explain it further. End of story <sigh>. Grow a mullet and beer belly and you are there. Ceoil (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A "mightier" mullet and a larger "beer belly"? I'll work on it: but... damn! You pictured me perfectly already... Doc9871 (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I see an 'I'm with stupid' tee-shirt, a shotgun, a jeep and countless girls gone wild DVD's. Am I wrong? Please dont dissapoint!! Ceoil (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I do not see what the guy did wrong. If anything I should thank him for being helpful. And you should appologize for attacking the dude for trying to help me out. I think you forgot the rule that you should assume good faith, no? (LAz17 (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

Hello

Hello?DocOfSoc (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello yourself! Check your mail... :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

""Double, double, toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble." Go for it! DocOfSoc (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more suspicious I am: and I am seeing some striking similarities so far. I want to be sure, though, before taking it to an admin (or SPI, or both). Compiling the evidence now... Doc9871 (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Another missive DocOfSoc (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

One more DocOfSoc (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's her, alright. Getting the evidence together, but I'm convinced it's her. This was too obvious for me to overlook: I must have been "slippin'". This evidence is all but impossible to deny... Doc9871 (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

cauldron bubble... is that from the black cauldron disney movie? (LAz17 (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

Naw - it's a classic line from Macbeth. Netflix Roman Polanski's Macbeth (1971 film), and you may be a fan of the bard's possibly greatest tragedy as well. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Can you tag this for me, in a hurry for now, thanks. [23] --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. I hate that stupid <|8~P signature. I really do... Doc9871 (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too!! DocOfSoc (talk) 12

38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jim Morrisonsinging.jpg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Doc9871 (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what photograph File:Jim Morrison ZeichnungSchuschke.jpg was copied from? If it's a derivative work of a copyrighted photo it needs to be deleted from Commons. —Angr (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... duh... Doc9871 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Trout

Just a heads up. You might have been a bit hasty with this trout. I don't know if you want to remove it in light of the fact that the users grammar seems to have been correct :P (perhaps I should trout you in response ;)). --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite open to slapping, of course. "The trout slaps both ways", it seems. I think he should have responded to the many inquiries, however: it makes for a more "collaborative" editing environment to do so. It wasn't just for the grammar changes... Doc9871 (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, makes sense :) just making sure. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good, here's a place for me to reply without starting one. Hi, Doc, in response to your message on mine, I'm aware of ANI, and I've never said anything to this editor except my post on his talk page. That post was intended to give him a little nudge, in a troutlike manner. I'm not too afraid that I might irritate him, although if he does react that way, perhaps if he is thinking about the feedback generated by his actions (as I'm sure that he is) he'll be able to see the playfulness and see that I didn't/don't think he did anything wrong, and don't intend to irritate him (and if not, oh well, I tried). The Trout kinda does that, no? I've posted to ANI. He might be wrong on the grammar issue, but that issue is a stupid one to argue about, and I think he's right to point it out, since it's the template language that is causing the problem, and that template can be fixed in a way that avoids the grammar debate (my mom would be proud). Steveozone (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll see your Nixon, and raise you a Kennedy (he did win, after all). HushP should be back, as he should know that no one did bear him any ill will. There's only so many ways to ask someone to talk, after all...Steveozone (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll see your Kennedy... and raise you a Roosevelt. Hush'll talk, I'm sure (eventually). "Speak softly..." - you know how the rest goes, right? We're not even at the turn yet... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well

My Dear Doc #1,

Humph, I *never* go to ANI (willingly) unless head is on fire ;-) So far only one dilettante has driven me to such lengths, Guess who? I much prefer to find a third party/admin to intercede, EVEN if that person disagrees with me ;-) "Doc#2...DocOfSoc (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Glad it was resolved, for sure. If you were right and the other wrong... well, you know ;> Doc9871 (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I know your just being Cautious

See my talk page. I have been given the a Check user Clean bill of health. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey - it's cool. Yeah, it freaked me out, but whatever. Could we keep the thread open a little longer, though? There's discussion going on, and it's not a "drama-fest". How does that sound? Doc9871 (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I didnt see it going anywhere, I just want this fiasco to be done with. I will defer to your judgement on this though. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout all that! I truly think that the JIDF page should be deleted, and I was just surprised by the rapid non-admin closure. It's hard not to get paranoid when things like this happen: the fact that your account was compromised by involving yourself there is testimony enough. The ultimate in WP:DENY would be to delete and salt. JMHO. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am actually just glad you didnt block me. I spent my whole morning siting under a block waiting for the Check User to do its magic and clear me. Not only was I blocked but they also blocked any edit from coming in from all the schools in the University of Tennessee System so I couldnt even Communicate from an IP. Unfortunately I doubt Salting would do much more than cause more trouble of this kind. We can sustain the a long term page lock down there with only Admins doing Edit requests and the article is in decent shape since Bali ultimate did clean up there. We need to realize deleting an article on a notable subject because the subject of the article gives us trouble is a dangerous precedent. I this quote doesnt work great in this situation but it get the point of across IMHO " Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither ... “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security” Lets stick to our WP:Five Pillars than trade it for a the conveinence of not having a JIDF article The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't block you if I wanted to, my friend: I'm just a "NCO" here, and not an admin :> I think the article is more trouble than it's worth, especially if it is going to continue the disruption of the nature it has been. But it's not up to me, of course (thank God! ;>). I agree with your last points - very well said. Cheers, RA! Doc9871 (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Retirement

As of 18 August, 2010, I will leave forever. It seems I am being bullied on here. After all the work I have done with no credit at all. I will not put up with this no longer. No help from admins, just wanting to block me, why don't you "help" me instead of "picking" on me? I made my mide up basically after I was blocked last time, I almost left but didn't and came back for week and now I am being treated like a person who came out of jail. I'm only aloud to make an edit to page a day, if I am being treated that way it is pointless to return. After 1 year, 5 months, 27 days, "goodbye". Please leave a goodbye message on discussions page if you please. GuineaPigWarrior Forever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinea pig warrior (talk • contribs) 13:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Jim Morrisonsinging.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jim Morrisonsinging.jpg, has been listed at 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. —Angr (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweet! That's all I wanted: at least now if the image fails the NFCC: more editors will have judged the issue than just you and I. It's better to have a trial than a summary execution, I always say ;> Thanks for the stamp issue clarification, BTW. The wording of the guideline was very confusing and vague, and your explanation was very helpful. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar...

Much thanks! Hope I helped :-) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You deserve it for sure. Assuming good faith is always most refreshing when it's actually demonstrated by editors here in positive ways. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I just spent the last 5 hours working on Amor_Prohibido_(song) (providing input and a little copyediting) with my new adoptee. I think he's on his way to his first GA article. Started as a 3K stub when he first started working on it. Now it's going through GA review! Working with him went great, and I think he's well on his way.

I also wrote this User:RobertMfromLI/Adoptees (feel free to give me feedback on it) for my two adoptees (though some other mentors are referring their adoptees to it too). So far, things going great with both adoptees. Thanks to you (and everyone else) supporting my suggestion in the ANI! Best, Robert / ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's excellent, Robert! Some editors brought up at AN/I are beyond the point of being able to edit here, but most editors taken there just need to reflect clearly on how the rules work. And help from patient editors can often make a huge difference. Sure, we all feel "burned" sometimes when we assume good faith in an editor and help them, and then they spit on us. But when it actually helps an editor (and then the project)... that's why you do it. Expect me chiming in when your Rf/A is up there, Robert... Doc9871 (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks for that! I definitely think I've got a way to go for that though. :-) Thanks again! Robert /ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, forgot to tell you, I made the mentor proposal at ANI (and User:Strange Passerby was nice enough to organize it as a proposal with consequences for us). I notified everyone else who was involved so they could all comment (for/against/different proposal), and hope you can do the same. Sorry I forgot to send you a message about it. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Link to ANI: User:AJona1992 ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments

Policy appears quite clear to me with respect to appropriate behaviour on Talk pages: "you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission." So why are you encouraging another editor to effectively not only not engage on a Talk page (despite WP:AVOIDEDITWAR "discuss the matter on the article's talk page") but to effectively defy this policy (as has been done)? If you believe that I am being WP:UNCIVIL then just say so, and recommend that I be dealt with appropriately. The fact of the matter is that a content dispute remains, regardless of your opinion of me or my arguments, and not only running away from the discussion of that dispute but deleting discussion where policy says it belongs (on the article's Talk page) is not going to solve it.Bdell555 (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're being uncivil to me: but the admin who protected the page has already warned that both of you may be blocked for edit-warring if this continues. I am in no such predicament (whew). I don't think 117Avenue should have been the one to revert your post on the talk page, and that's an issue that I'm sure will be addressed: I do not "condone" the revert. I'm trying to diffuse the situation and help you both better understand WP policy. WP:CIVIL requires that we not attack other editors. We're all here to build the best encyclopedia possible, and keep it running smoothly. When content disputes arise, editors are to take it to the talk page of the article, discuss the edits only, and refrain from commenting on each others' behavior. If they persist on edit-warring: editors get blocked. Good luck to both of you, and I hope you resolve this positively. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I would just add that pointing out the inconsistent application of what another editor says is, or should be, policy ought to be permissible, and in my view even encouraged, because it can potentially be very effective in illustrating how the called-for policy is untenable. Does it imply that an editor is a hypocrite? Yes, it does. But that's the reality of disputation. Is it necessary to further state explicitly that an editor is a hypocrite? No it isn't, and in this case I do not believe I did. I did call for the editor to be challenged but I would not exempt myself from that call in the slightest. I had simply decided to walk away from the article in the interests of moving on and wanted to make it clear what happened so history need not repeat itself. As it as, a variety of novice editors have been having their edits deleted for some time on the page without challenging the reverter. In sum, I think there is a serious problem on Wikipedia of bad or even destructive editing being coddled by not telling editors who are having their preferred philosophies or policies getting attacked on a Talk page to get "back in the ring" so to speak. If the editor in question is not edit warring, then that's an entirely different matter: there is no call for challenging editors who are content to leave a page alone and move on.Bdell555 (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it takes two (at least) to edit war: one editor alone cannot edit war. Aside from that, your arguments above are excellent indeed! I'm neutral in this case, and not very familiar with it, but here's a little trick I learned. When edit wars start brewing: back off, and let the other one win (for now) and document the behavior. Other editors will revert if the edits you contest are truly wrong, anyway. If you're being attacked (happens to all of us) - don't attack back, but rather diffuse it with the content arguments that started the disagreement. Rise above any incivility, and you will always win. WP:DIFF is the best way to present evidence when needed. Ask any questions anytime, and Cheers, Bde11555! Doc9871 (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I'd just make one more comment about your "stick to the content dispute, not the editor" advice and that's that the editing community is not seeing the totality of what's going on if the scope of every Talk page is strictly locked down to the content of its associated article. In the issue here, the other editor has not just been reverting me and others with respect to the candidate information we added to Edmonton municipal election, 2010, but to Calgary municipal election, 2010 and to Lethbridge municipal election, 2010 as well (e.g. here and here for examples of this extensive deletion to articles I've had nothing to do with). If one adds up the number of different editors who have been adding candidate information to these different articles, ones gets a lot of information from a varied group of editors. If one insists on not elevating any Talk page discussion above a particular article's content to the common element across multiple articles (which is an EDITOR, applying his philosophy throughout Wikipedia) then the extent of what I would call the Wikipedia consensus as opposed to the specific article consensus is minimized. You trust that "[o]ther editors will revert if the edits you contest are truly wrong" but I don't think this will reliably and effectively occur if "divide and conquer" is being facilitated by instructing everyone to not talk about the conquerer. A couple weeks ago there was an extensive AfD discussion, when an expert in the field appeared and explained how the key advocate for keeping the article had been harassing the research community for years. I looked into it, and, sure enough, what appeared at first glance on Wikipedia to be argument of an accomplished and reasonable Wikipedia editor was revealed in the larger context to be but another maneuver in an ongoing campaign of fringe cause activism. Now maybe that would have come out eventually. But seeing someone, who was in a position to know, get right to the point about what was really going on was far preferable to me than continuing with a Kabuki charade that tries to ignore the big picture in the name of civility. All this to suggest that civility concerns should be applied in the service of maintaining ignorance (and by extension, lack of resolvability).Bdell555 (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This edit is my...

Hi, how's it going Doc? I just happened to notice that my edit count is getting ready to roll into 10,000 edits so I thought I would touch base with you with it to see if there is anything I've been missing since I haven't been online that much lately. What are you up to that you might be able to share with me? LOL! Is there anything I should be watching or that I can help watch? I am trying to get editors interested in the Lizzy Borden article to help get rid of or reference some sections in the article. Since Wildhartlivie's retirement, she used to tend to this article, a lot of information needs to be looked at to make sure it follows policy. If you are interested and have the time to help out there it would really be appreciated. I made a comment on the talk page about my first concerns so that you can see what I'm talking about. Well let me know if I can help you too, be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI stuff

I hope LB & TR are innocent. If they're not, it'll only make it tougher to trust others at those BI disucssions. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Seeing, as you pointed out, that a new sock just popped up at the SPI... it's not very encouraging. This has apparently been a conflict that goes back years, and I'm sure it's not going away anytime soon. I just wish people at the SPI would stop bringing up the greater debate and look at the evidence. Triton Rocker is a sleeper that LevenBoy brought into the fray: it's the only reasonable way to explain his behavior. And it still gets put back to HighKing[24]... Doc9871 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Doc #1

You are very very baaaaaaaaaaad!!! "What!! will these hands ne'er be clean/"DocOfSoc (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978 film) was "creeeeepy" as a kid, believe me (Donald Sutherland's mustache alone was frightening). The original film with Kevin McCarthy - always a true classic. Glad I gotcha, if only for a minute... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too! It IS your task to make me smile:-D Missed ya. Did you catch fun with me & TFOWR & Sonia and a blankey? LOL

P.S. I am devastated that having finally reached 3000 edits i don't get a damn medal, ribbon, nuttin' hunny DocOfSoc (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

1,000 more: I'm in the same place at 5,000. But "medals" are for "heroes", and "editcountitis" - yecch! I used to care about it more, and I've got the AWB "privs", but I don't have the time to worry about it. I'm watching, and try not to get too "red-headed". Prost! Doc9871 (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Too late! [25] Cabernet? Prost! DocOfSoc (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! "Kill 'em with kindness", my Mom always used to say... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Doc9871's Day!

Doc9871 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Doc9871's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Doc9871! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks, man! I'm honored, for sure! I'll try to live up to it, but I didn't think I'd see this one! Cheers, Mate :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You're quite Welcome! :) Just keep up the great work and you will do just fine. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed your day, I would have sent flowers or a new DVD or something. :) Ok I'm in a silly mood right now. On a serious tone though, I hope your day was a fun one. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You too...

...will soon be added to the "u r being mean to..." list. It seems to culminate with a lot of other mischaracterizations and allegations as well. Just an FYI, though I'm guessing you already knew that. :-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hehee! I'm hardly worried. I've dealt with User:Sven70 and others that think they're hysterical and original, but it's not. It's disruptive, and this isn't kindergarten. Let me be at the top of his "lst" - I've had it with this foolishness. Cheers, man... :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

LoL! I think you are going to have to fight for that position!!! In trying to propose no sanctions for their trollish behavior, I've moved up a few notches it seems. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We'll see where he goes next. His odd humor reminds of a guy I knew in high school, and I must admit there are times when his posts (when going through them) make me chuckle. If he irritates me by further being disruptive, he'll see my "ogrish" side. Then I'm guaranteed the top spot on the list... Doc9871 (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping, you've got mail! I figured this was as good a place than anyplace else. I'm afraid to ask, what top "lst" or is that list (typo)? and do I want to know?! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Where are you?

"forsooth, there is no one I trust more." Where are ye when I need ye?? DocOfSoc (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, your talking weirder than I am! :) <Joling> Can I help you out? I'll pop over to your page in case you miss this. I'm in a strange mood right now so beware. I need to be since I've been pretty much spending my time learning the ins and outs of an arbcom case. I'm ready now to do some other things now so, I am now popping over to your page. See you soon there, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, you two! Sorry I haven't been on much, but I've been preoccupied with a new internet "addiction". Yeah, I have "nerdish leanings", I guess you could say. Doc #2, don't get mad at me, but from what I've seen, this is another tiny and forgivable "red-headed moment". I think you might have been confusing User:Purplebackpack89 with User:Atlantabravz, who did[26] leave a warning on September 8: a simple mistake?. At any rate, "My mother used to say...'If you can't say something nice about someone, make sure they're out of the goddamn room!'"[1]. In private e-mails you can let it all hang out when you're mad, but the name-calling gets seen here, and it's never a good thing. You don't need me to tell you how to act, oh fellow "ginger": it's the "reacting" part that I struggle with too sometimes. It's all good, and things seemed to have calmed down a bit. Let's all face the next challenge, 'cause we know damn well there's always plenty ahead. Hope all's well with both of you, and I'll see you soon!  :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I have no idea how long you spent on that sockpuppet accusation but I think you should apologise for wasting people's time and spreading bad feelings.

As promised - Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

--LevenBoy (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no discussion about him on there. AJona1992 (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This section is titled "Apology", but "spreading bad feelings" is something I did not do. BTW, the editing rejects over at Wikipedia Review are having a field day with my little "time-waster" of an SPI[27], and I recognize one old enemy of WP in that discussion under a "new name" for certain. I feel... honored. I can't apologize for filing the report: sorry. Hopefully you and TR will follow the rules here, and you'll note that I have had no part in the greater BISE discussion (and do not intend to). The SPI I submitted failed, so congratulations on that. If you want to discuss me at AN/I, that's fine, and I appreciate the heads up. Good luck to you... Doc9871 (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Doc don't listen to those comments those people said your nothing like that, your a great person :) AJona1992 (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"Be bloody, bold, and resolute! Laugh to scorn The pow'r of man, for none of woman born Shall harm Macbeth."  ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

—'o=Joy=has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! DocOfSoc (talk)

Thanks, Doc #2! I'm using this to test my first attempt at a new sig. The colors may change... Doc 9871 04:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You are too bright to be gray ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Doc, take a peek at my addition to that thread you started at my talk page. I think the two threads needed connecting so that editors here can see the connection with that user. Have a good one, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User Westconnector‎ is vandalizing the Charles Karel Bouley page. I left a message on TFOWR page, and he took care of it. This may be SRQ. TF left a great warning and the page now been blanked. Sound familiar? Anyway,thought you should know and I guess there is no way to avoid mentioning the "Obsessed One". I will cc this to you know whom ;-) Joyously yours, DocOfSoc (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be her, but with only two edits to the account, there's not much to go on. However, we can now add "copyright infringement" to the long list of her editing "issues": I had an early article she "wrote" (Northern State Hospital) deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. She copied phrases and "syntax" (shudder) so closely from the source that it was pathetic. I'm watching, and of course I saw the Bouley edits. We'll see where she turns up next, I'm sure... ;> Doc talk 03:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

She's Baaaaaaaack. No doubt. [See Lizzie Borden]DocOfSoc (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

After some careful consideration, I do believe you're right... Doc talk 19:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You had to consider??? Humph!!!!!!! N...DocOfSoc (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

She's requested an unblock this time. Sometimes edit summaries, sometimes not. Indignant unblock requests? Not surprising. Yes, "you were right". Happy? She's not... ;P Doc talk 23:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

;-) I am happy when my Beloved Macbeth does not doubt my radar which is even better than my gaydar, LOL. :-p

" He shall live a man forbid: Weary . . ." xoxo DocOfSoc (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You continue to be awesome! Thanks ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Crap! I forgot "syntax"[28]. I'll "rework" it later... ;> Doc talk 02:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You stole my 3 dots! ROFL! Better that I gift them to you with luv. N...02:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Refresh my memory, who does Dante 8 belong to? I thought it was her but I'm not finding it in her list of socks. The reason I ask is the IP you asked about this Dante account I just reverted horrible edits again at the Scarlett Johansson article. I said the sock accusation is also unanswered or something to that affect so I'd like to remember who Dante 8 is again. If it is her's we need to mark it as such. I'm also having trouble locating the Dante 8 account, could be meds right now affecting me since my guts not playing nice today. :( Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Dante8 SPI is here[29]. There wasn't any proof it was her, just the topics edited were "right up her alley". This IP is Dante8, but Dante8 hasn't edited in awhile, so I don't know if it's considered socking. I'll take a peek at it... Doc talk 19:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Who are you talking about when you say this. The editor warning about misuse of a BLP or the editor whose talk page the discussion is being held at? Check your email for some more interesting names. talk soon, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan

Please tell Dylan to stay away from me and to stop posting on my talk page.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, as you can see from his responses, he is not willing to compromise with me. He is just going to revert and thats that. He doesn't see any need to compromise and has promised to edit war even if it results in his getting banned. Are you sure there is nothing I can do about him right now?RomanHistorian (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Not a day has passed, and he's at it again. He comes here to lie about me and insist that I should be blocked. Is this acceptable behavior? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say blocked. I want you to stay away from me.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

He keeps posting on my talk page. I thought we were suppose to avoid each other?RomanHistorian (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this disupte has finally simmered.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As part of the Wikiquette alert, I stated that I would post a warning on your talk page and this was accepted as a reasonable thing to do. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, just want to bring this to your attentions. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I've been getting zero response on the issue, so we're probably going to have to handle this ourselves. Wouldn't be the first time... Doc talk 17:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"We will establish our estate upon Our eldest, Malcolm, whom we name hereafter The Prince of Cumberland"  ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Stars, hide your fires, Let not light see my black and deep desires..." ;> Doc talk 07:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"All Macbeth has left is his pride, and it is his pride which keeps him fighting"  ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing

An editor named Leadwind has deleted a large amount of cited material from Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John. Some, though not all, of the deletions he made were of material I added. He dismisses the sources I (and others) used as "fringe", and defines the "mainstream" view on authorship with what a narrow (typically atheist) band of scholars say. He is even quoting things out of context (he used a reference that said Luke wasn't history in the typical sense and skewed it into "Luke isn't reliable history") and makes some pretty sloppy mistakes (claiming the author of Acts of the Apostles didn't think Paul was an apostle, despite the fact that he refers to him as such numerous times and half the book is about Paul). I am outnumbered, so the other (about 2 or 3) editors can back each other up, and keep my legitimate sources deleted. I think many of his deletions were inappropriate, and much of what he has added has been out-of-context. Could you take a look and see what you think?RomanHistorian (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at the sources, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. It might be something for WP:RSN. I must say that if you're feeling "outnumbered", it may well be that your preferred version goes against consensus, and this happens to everyone at some time or another. Consensus can change, of course. Doc talk 07:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

By "outnumbered", there is one other editor backing him up. Please also take a look at Leadwind's new reversions here, here and here and the discussion here. I think his reversions were inapporipriate for the reasons I gave. Please let me know what you think. He restored a claim that is clearly wrong (the author of Acts didn't think Paul was an apostle) as well as my and and tags. He is also claiming the views of one author represents the "consensus" even though that author makes no such claim, in addition to his wholesale deletions of my other sources. Oh and he is also taking several claims from his sources out of context.

My problem is that his editing is going against Wikipedia standards (deletion of RS, claiming he represents the "consensus" although is unable to provide evidence, attacking other views as "fringe" or "sectarian", dismissing most sources because they come from publishers he doesn't like, ect). I am willing to work with any views, but when someone deletes all of the sources you use and assumes from the beginning that your position is fringe, there isn't much I can do. Not only do my sources (not least the one by Darrell Bock) show my position is not fringe, but look at the talk page of Gospel of John, in particular the comments of Tom, Hardypants and JJB. They agree with me (even take a stronger view than I do).

That said, I very much appreciate your assistance.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Should I be hurt or flattered? Leadwind (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Doc, he did it again. Again, the source is "sectarian" even though the scholar is a widely published one, making an objective statement about the range of scholarly opinion. I am not going to edit war as he seems more than willing to do. He even restored an out-of-context quote from the online Encyclopedia Britannica.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I am also sick of his condescending attitude towards me.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Doc, Leadwind is on the verge of edit warring. Another editor restored the edit I made (which Leadwind had reverted) and Leadwind reverted this here. Also note the comment of that editor whom Leadwind reverted "I don't think any of these edits are actually legit, but I'm willing to continue to be patient." It is obvious that Leadwind has a view on what "truth" is and is unwilling to accept the legitimacy of views that don't agree with his version of "truth".RomanHistorian (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still looking at it, and there's a lot to look at. I've been preoccupied dealing with a banned sockpuppeteer who can't take "No" for an answer, so I'll have to get back to you on this later. All I can give you is my advice on what I see, and being neutral on this, I don't know yet who is "right or wrong". I'll let you know. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Focus on Gospel of Luke. That seems to be the article where most of the changes have been made. Specifically look at Leadwind's changes and the reversions Dylan has made. He has forced a major POV into the article and all changes I make get reverted.RomanHistorian (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick look there is showing both sides trading "weasel words" in the article, and worse, altering inline citations (which then makes the citations incorrect). Both sides also argue about the validity of each others' sources, which is a whole other issue. This is a long-standing and heated problem, and it's going to take some time to look at properly. Until I can weigh in with a more educated opinion of this, it looks like POV is a problem - and it's two differing POV's. Whatever is best for the article according to WP's standards is where the dispute will eventually end. Doc talk 08:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I'm not sure if this should be be removed as a banned user. I think it should be but I'm throwing it to you because I'm not having a good day. Please check it out when you get a moment. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

SRQ is blaming JohnBonaccorsi for the edit, but she was right there to respond. Amazing... Doc talk 06:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Another one

Hi, check out the history of my talk page for the newest one I know of, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Very rude, even for her. Unless you know of another editor that ruthlessly stalks your edits, I'm sure it's safe to assume who it is, and that they are not here to improve the encyclopedia. A truly classic sock discovered last night is Lazuli Bunting (talk · contribs), who after editing an obscure article[30] last touched by SRQ, comes off a lengthy "break" to whine about you and Doc#2. I'm getting tired of asking for duck blocks - anyone you know that you're willing to ask? Cheers :> Doc talk 18:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I have a couple of them that I can request help from, just send me an email when you need. I do it via email so as to utilize WP:DENY. Just let me know. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Georgia

Hi Doc. Just in case you need something to get your mind off SRQ and her antics, I came across a small issue with your user page. Among the places you have visited is the fine state of Georgia, but the link is to the disambiguation page and the flag is actually that of the country in the Caucasus. Best, Favonian (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hehe thanks. Fixed it :> Doc talk 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Mac

“Double, double toil and trouble;

Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

By the pricking of my thumbs,

Something wicked this way comes.“

DocOfSoc (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Good morning, check your email for some interesting info. Hope all is well. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems elsewhere

I think we are moving towards a consensus on Gospel of Luke but a similar issue (exclusion of Christian-leaning publications) seems to be underway on Historicity of Jesus. I am not involved in this dispute (my earlier edits were reverted without discussion so I just stayed out of it), but it appears to be a bigger problem on Wikipedia than I had realized.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Now Leadwind is making the same disruptive edits to Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew. I commented on it at the bottom of the Luke discussion page.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind now disrupting other articles

Leadwind is now introducing his POV into Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew, using the same destructive edit warring method he used on Gospel of Luke. Yet again, he deletes a lot of sources from scholars who are personally religious. Not only that, but he adds liberal scholars and then suggests they represent the mainstream. One of his changes modified a sentence that stated liberal scholar Bart Ehrman's opinion and restated it as though it represented consensus.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you, Roman: I'm watching the situation carefully and will undoubtedly weigh in when appropriate. You all are still productively editing and not blocked: and this is good. My current involvement at another topic is making me hesitant to reply just yet, but again, I'm looking into it as a neutral observer. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Please checkout

Hi, please checkout this when you get a moment. Thanks! Doc #2, please don't comment just yet, thanks. Email me if you're interested. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What, you mean a brand-new account that immediately put themselves in the middle of a DocOfSoc conflict, calling for administrative action? Naw... not suspicious at all! ;> Saying it's "none of their business" twice in the same post is a little... odd. It's a sock I'm pretty danged sure, but there's a possibility it's someone else: I'll end you an e-mail. Don't tag this one, please - I want to see where this goes. Cheers :>

(P.S. - I find, "As someone of color, I'm going to assume that those who are insisting the articles on Chinatowns that are in dispute should remain are probably White." to be a little strange: "person of color" seems an awfully PC "White" way to describe someone, and not when it's yourself.) Doc talk 18:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Check out the talk page. Anyways, no problems and don't worry I had no intentions of marking anything. I'll email you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Email sent. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied. Pretty interesting. Maybe I'll pop in for a chat one of these days ;> Doc talk 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I didn't file the initial report. User:Arilang1234 did, and was promptly notified at the thread that he didn't provide anything specific against me. Дунгане (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm only trying to help: the thread has become "difficult to read": and they often do. When a thread draws attention (comments from watchers) more for its lengthiness rather than its original intent, it's often "not good". Seen it, been there, done that. Hope it all goes well, and Cheers :> Doc talk 05:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Feelin' Jerky

gotta luv 'em !

Kamal's real page: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/profile.php?id=550394629

A gal in my HS upstaet, NY Michelle...well her bro. Arnold was Kamal's best pal in Queens, until Arnold go married. Peace is contagious (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"And then I bring out small mountain cat, to terrorize the people." LOL :> Doc talk 01:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Kyle Baker

I appreciate all your help and time and concern. People who come to Wikipedia to promote themselves or their friends, without caring about the policies and guidelines that help us all get along and do solid, constructive work that will someday give Wikipedia the credibility it doesn't yet have ... it can be frustrating. Thank you for investigating, and I hope he's done maliciously tormenting. I assume the above is a reference to the Jerky Boys? Wonderful that the ironically named Peace is contagious is having fun at another human being's expense. Although judging from his poor grammar, misuse of words and his claim that he's in college at age 37, I guess in real life I've got the last laugh. For heaven's sakes. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. He went and reverted again -- constituting a 3RR. I'm hoping an admin will finally take notice. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that anyone who finds The Jerky Boys hysterical (in their best bits) has a sick and depraved sense of humor (and I am one of them). But harassing good-faith editors like yourself on this project isn't for anyone to do, so he will hopefully understand that he's being "observed", and that he will just move on and do constructive work here. Only time will tell. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This may be of interest

Hi, when you see this note, would you meet me over here? Franamax is already there getting clarifications of changes made to the banning policy that could affect us in a major way so your input would be very helpful. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

She's establishing again

She is getting comfy again as can be seen here. I don't think it should be allowed, or yea it's not. She should be gone not have this BS. Go do what you do so well. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't be her from what I'm seeing. Would've been tagged already if it was. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I removed the outing information at ANI, hope you don't mind. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to be associated with that account, either. That canvassing session it made was pretty insane. I don't agree with this being "outing", and perhaps it's time for the language to be changed. Seeya :> Doc talk 03:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Spurious accusations

If you believe that I'm a sock, back it up and take it to checkuser. Otherwise, I demand you retract your accusation and apologize. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to answer the "demand" of a meddlesome Ip to show WP:AGF in what I think this account is. I like this statement from you: "It's rather difficult for an IP editor to make direct contributions to semi-protected articles"[31]. Indirect contributions, however, would be achievable through a named account, correct? Doc talk 01:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Manson revision

You might want to carry out the revision indicated in boldface in the section headed "Steven Parent" on the Charles Manson talk page.71.242.114.149 (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I might want to, eh? John, you're not "banned", but rather "blocked" for something you can come back from: and you need to do this. I don't know if "proxying"[32] applies to blocked editors, but block evasion does apply here. Retract the legal threat and promise not to make any more, and you are back in business: I've seen it happen with others. You know a hell of a lot about the Manson details, and your input would improve the article for sure. But not like this. It's an unusual situation: you're not denying the IP is you, you're not being disruptive and you are attempting to improve the accuracy of the article... but you're still blocked. File the unblock request, and I'll make the change (provided I'm "allowed" to). No reason to go on like this! Cheers :> Doc talk 08:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite response, Doc. Let’s just say we all have our reasons.

The revision suggested at the Manson talk page was offered in response to a complaint that was made there; that's how Wikipedia should work, right? The "proxying" passage you linked includes the following:

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them. (Emphasis added)

The footnotes I included in the suggested revision cite two sources, Chapter 14 of Tex Watson’s autobiography (Will You Die for Me?) and pages 260-61 of the 1994 "25th Anniversary" edition of Bugliosi and Gentry’s Helter Skelter (chapter headed “March 1970”). The relevant passage in the Watson book is this:

As I lunged forward the boy cried out: "Please . . . please, don't hurt me. I'm your friend . . . . I won't tell." I shot him four times and at some point struck out with the knife, slashing at the left arm he raised to shield his face. After he had slumped back across the seat I reached in the window, cutting the motor and lights before I pushed the car part of the way back up the driveway where it would be less visible from the private road.

The passage from Bugliosi and Gentry is this:

In addition to the gunshsot wounds, Steven Parent had a defensive stab wound that ran from the palm across the wrist of his left hand. It severed the tendons as well as the band of his wristwatch. Obviously, Parent had raised his left hand, the hand closest to the open window, in an effort to protect himself, the force of the blow being sufficient to hurl his watch into the back seat.

As you see, Doc, I have linked those sources, so that, in accordance with the proxying passage you cited, you may "confirm that the changes are verifiable." You, of course, will decide whether you have "independent reasons" for making the changes.

PS As I have said, my footnotes cite the 1994 Helter Skelter edition, which is the edition cited throughout the Manson article. The Google Books edition I linked above is the 2001 edition; that’s why the page number doesn’t match. Because I was unable to link the 25th anniversary edition at Google Books, you have only my word, I’m afraid, that the correct page numbers in that edition are 260-61. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.114.149 (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sloan

I'm very disapointed by Wikipedia at the moment. How you can let such an important thing go is just crazy. I will need a breath of fresh oxygeno after this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Hackman (talk • contribs) 01:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to Hear

Sorry to hear about the "PTSD after getting a knife stuck in my throat many years ago". That is just plain horrible and I hope you had no lasting damage to your throat area from it. If you ever need to talk, my email account is open. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, man! It happened a few blocks from the White House (though it was after 2:00 AM on a Monday morning). Got a nice scar to remember it, but no internal damage. Cheers, Homer :> Doc talk 23:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's DC for ya. I live about 70 miles west of DC, so I hear all about the horrible stuff that goes on there. It is really sad, cause DC is just a cool city. Only been there once at night, I was 3. Glad there was no internal damage. Probably could get some plastic surgery for the scar (laser type stuff) to lessen the appareance of it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

From WP:CIVIL

First, a quote:

2. Other uncivil behaviors

(a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves;

(b) harassment, including Wikihounding, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings;

(c) lying;

(d) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them.

Based on this, would you say Collect and THF are being civil? Dylan Flaherty 13:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In this edit[33], it is very easy to see that it is a "dressed up" way of saying, "You are always wrong and I therefore don't value your opinion." When treading in civility issues, one must carefully heed WP:BOOMERANG and WP:KETTLE - common sense often comes quicker to most than dissecting policy and guidelines. Any thread you open, esp. on a board watched by thousands, is subject to comment from anyone, and we can't refactor comments just because we disagree with them. If you respond with incivil comments, it doesn't help you. Doc talk 13:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not seem as though you have made an attempt to answer my question. Instead, you mention two advice essays that I do not believe apply here. Dylan Flaherty 18:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for watching over my talk page

Thank you for watching over me and removing the trash. I appreciate it. I accidentially noticed your removal of the rudeness that again hits my talk page. I hope you are well. Talk soon, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you characterize this as an attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyTeflon (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You are a serious creep. Disappear... Doc talk 06:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Palin

I mean exactly what I have said about you, twice now. You ignore my posts. In a thread about someone else's alleged bad behaviour. Have a really good read, and think, please. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Send me an e-mail. Doc talk 11:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Which change?

Hi, Doc, and thanks for message. No doubt you are right; but just wondering what change I made that was wrong. Thanks again! --Shirt58 (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This one. Doc talk 11:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Big mistake on my part - sincere apologies. I was going talk to HiLo48 about his "don't post angry" and ad hominem AN/I comment, then got distracted, and misclicked. I often edit in the same topic areas as HiLo48; we've agreed to disagree a few times, and also have been in full agreement, but see User_talk:HiLo48#About_Talk:Melbourne_University_Football_Club. All that said, the fault for this is entirely my own. As an experienced editor, I should not have made that mistake.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have messaged HiLo48 about this discussion. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

SP etc

Sorry about what was somewhat of an overreaction in those discussions. My problem was that I was trying to participate constructively in the discussion, but all I saw was people attacking Dylan F, some quite rudely and irrationally. I saw no sensible response at all to what I suggested, just continued attack on someone else. I guess I misjudged you as another who was ignoring what I posted. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Dylan & I go back as far as "Roman times" (which seem to have passed away like the Romans). Cheers :> Doc talk 07:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there an Aussie word for "kissing and making up"?? And Peace will guide the planet.............Buster Seven Talk 07:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think, "Cheers, mate" is about as good as it gets. Beer and good faith are what count (DYK that the Pilgrims brought beer instead of water on their voyage for oh, so many reasons?) Holding grudges is anti-WP, and should be its own policy (except for the "instruction creep") ;> Doc talk 07:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A polite request

Please do a favor by not posting on my talk page. Thanks. Dylan Flaherty 08:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And why is that? This is a tactic usually taken by those who don't wish to work with consensus... Doc talk 10:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I requested this is sufficient. The fact that you ignored my request confirms that I was right to make it. I'm going to do you the courtesy of deleting your recent comment from my talk page and forgetting about the whole thing. But if you post again to my talk page, I will report you. Dylan Flaherty 10:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Reporting" me is going to to very little for you. Try to avoid the conflict that "embroils" you, Dylan... Doc talk 10:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

One technique for avoiding conflict is to disengage from the sort of people who thrive on it. On a related note, would you like me to add you to my list of talk pages that I avoid? Dylan Flaherty 10:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Heheee! You are always welcome to comment on my page: why would you want to avoid it? I was attracted to your edits: not the other way around. I recommend that you "smile pretty" for awhile, since your edits have garnered plenty of attention. I'm under the same worldwide scrutiny that you are: but I'm not too worried. You master your own destiny, and I can't try to even begin giving you more unaccepted advice. You have it all figured out: and I wish you luck. Seriously... Doc talk 10:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I can't think of anyone that Doc has banned or even requested not to use his talk page. That being said Dylan, you have quite a few editors that you have told to stay away from yours which is actually not a good idea. I have read the AN/i and other places about all of this. May I boldly suggest that you discontinue this kind of behavior since it looks extremely bad for you? It makes you look like you don't get along with a lot of editors. I have no dog in this fight so please take what I say as an outside observer. I wish you well but keep in mind that a lot of editors are now watching, including people like me. Good luck though, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Style

I took a quick look at your edit history. While I was far from comprehensive, I did not get the impression that you regularly involve yourself with controversial articles. I do, and I suspect that it is this choice of articles, rather than any matter of style, that accounts for much of the difference. Dylan Flaherty 09:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I specialize in controversial editors, not articles. It's a living... ;> Doc talk 09:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, as someone who has had a lot of contact with Doc may I suggest that you listen to his advice? He usually gives good advice that helps keep editors from getting in trouble. Just a suggestion mind you but a good one. Sometimes it's good to find editors that will think about a situation and bother to try to help out. Good luck though. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about the use of ...

Hi, we need input from editors at this discussion about if it should be used or not and where the discussion should be held. Comments by others are more than welcomed. Please read the section and give an opinion if you would. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Overlap

The Wikistalk thing is very misleading. For example, it shows "overlap" on a talk page for User:Nancy, an admin. You asked about a page she deleted in Feb 2010 and about 3 weeks later, I asked about a CSD that was completely unrelated to the article you asked about. You and I had no interaction and we were there about totally unrelated, mundane matters, but it is a "similarity". Niteshift36 (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I know - and most of the talk pages we have in common are hit by all sorts of editors. When there's a pattern of little articles Wikistalk can be very helpful, but it's just one tool to be checked against others when looking at these things. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• I checked one other. 6 months apart, we talked to an editor (User:Closedmouth) about something completely unrelated (you about WP:NFCC and me about a prod of an article). Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I always look at http://en.wikichecker.com/user/ and wikistalk - sometimes it's easy to exclude or include when comparing the two. But even then, it's hit or miss in this anonymous proxy universe... Doc talk 05:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's scientifically invalid, because there are natural correlations. If I edit Abortion, I'm much more likely to also edit Pro-life, and so on. It's basically a tool to aid in witch hunts. Dylan Flaherty 08:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Witch hunts" implies searching for "witches". But there's no need to search for disruption to the community ("witchery") when it knocks on your door. Keep your nose clean, Dylan: you've got a ton of editors watching you. Good luck to you... Doc talk 09:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Since he opened a door here, I'd like to point out that the OP claims I'm stalking him. Yet he's the one who came here (to your talkpage) after seeing my talkpage exchange with you, Doc, and before that my contributions to SPLC and ANI. His very first time at SPLC was [34] to respond to me specifically, then argue otherwise. I'm sure you don't really care, but just in case, there's more context at my talkpage. Regards, -PrBeacon (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• if you will notice, I have not left that single section. I began a discussion about a separate issue and did nothing to engage you. The SPLC has been on my watchlist for a long time. As I stated in the discussion (and other places on WP), I have an interest in the organization since I've attended classes by them, am a subscriber to their publications and routinely use the SPLC as a resource. In short, you had nothing to do with my being there. Seriously PR, this is just getting old. You don't like me. I don't like you. That's ok, it happens in life. But everysingle discussion with you ends up with you either demanding an apology about something you think you were insulted over. You've tried to allude to me working for FNC, that I was a sock (which I have never even been accused of. The admin was blocking an editor I was debating and clicked the wrong name. He reversed himself 1 minute later and put in the edit summary that it was a mistake), that there is some sort of off-wiki collusion and any number of other things. None of them are true. At one point, you and I agreed to remove the petty bickering from a discussion and, if you recall, I was completely agreeable to that. But then you made the assumption that I'd do it every time things devolved, without even being asked. You keep talking about respect. I don't want your respect at this point. Civility, however, would be appreciated. But if you drag the past into every single discussion, rather than taking each discussion as it comes, I don't see that happening. In any case, I've taken up enough of Doc's talk page (My apologies Doc). If you want to discuss ending this silliness, fine by me. If your intention is to make a lot of demands and finger-pointing, save your time. I'm far more interested in the future than the past. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Much of that is just plain wrong. NS36 has a very skewed sense of reality and when something doesn't seem to fit, he shoves or squeezes it to his liking. When I make a vague reference to "history of disagreements" for context, he uses that as an excuse to rehash it & project his baggage. I've never asked for an apology from him nor do I expect one, as I don't think he's capable of it. But I won't pretend that he's at certain articles for anything more than POV-pushing, hypocritical lecturing, and general bickering to wear others down. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Never asked for an apology? Ok, whatever. I just wanted to say I was willing to discuss the issue civilly, not bicker back and forth more about the same stuff. Clearly, you're more concerned with "being right" than looking for an understanding. I won't waste more of Doc's talk page space (or my time) making the attempt. Enjoy your day. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Back at ya. The most obvious sign of your deluded self-importance is the insistence on using bullet points for every one of your posts, against convention and others' requests. And I thought you would have stopped earlier here after a comment like (My apologies Doc) .. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure you've noticed, Beacon isn't always the easiest editor to deal with. He has a tendency of disruptive behavior that he projects onto others. Niteshift and I are favorite targets of his. Good luck. Rapier (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, after practically "begging" me to reply on his talk page after seven days of inactivity, I am told (again?) not to post to his talk page when he doesn't hear what he likes.[35] Funny - I can't find where he told me to "move along" the first time. But I'll "AGF" and assume that he did... somewhere. Doc talk 22:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

'begging,' eh? well, first of all that post was not directed at you. and second, my request for you to 'move along' is unrelated to it. that's also my way of saying we're just rehashing the same points. not quite the same as 'don't post here' though i suppose i could have worded that more clearly, you have your own way of reading things, too. (A simple text search of the page would show you where i said it before, though I didn't complain when you ignored it -- but why let the facts get in the way of your argument). while i appreciate you striking your SPA dig at the most recent ANI, i note that you still left "harassed" which is questionable to say the least. but i'm not going to retread that argument, you'd probably ignore it or respond to some irrelevant point, anyway. i'll only say, by your logic, you are harassing me, and twice now you've been wrong. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As does 'Rapier/SeanNovack' -- another POV-pusher at liberal/progressive pages like MMfA and defender at conservative pages like FoxNews. See the recent exchange at contentious_tagging where I reminded him of why we don't get along. [36] He is another one who doesn't respect differing viewpoints, and thinks it's appropriate to dismiss a new voice at his protected turf out of hand based on his own preconceptions. His new use of the term 'targets' is almost laughable -- I've specifically avoided him and Niteshift since last summer. Those two feel the need to seek out new venues where they can poke and stir, responding with more of that patronizing hypocrisy. Some of us learn early on how to disagree without being disagreeable, others just think they do. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

correlation is not causation

By the way Doc I thought you might want to consider some of the salient points in this article Correlation does not imply causation. So far the tools you've mentioned seem to give an incomplete and misleading picture. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. I've caught a few socks here, and I've been wrong about others. Some advice to you: try to back off of LAEC. As I said, your very first edit to Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center was to chastise LAEC here: an article he had been at for a week[37]. Choosing to insert yourself like this in a debate at an article you have never edited before would seem like "following" to some. Especially considering your "opinion" of LAEC. The tactics you and Mr. Flaherty employ are putting you both down a dark path: I have seen it before many times. Hear me now and believe me later... Doc talk 10:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya ya, girlie mon. Thanks for the advice, I'll consider it. But where do you get the 'one week' from? He has been battling at the SPLC for awhile, at least since June [38]. And I'm sure you know that my first post there doesn't mean much in terms of how long I've been watching the article. If you'd looked a bit more closely at the 'debate' as you call it, it's pretty much one-sided. Others have just gotten sick of correcting him every time. In hindsight I suppose I can see how you might jump to the conclusion you did at ANI about following, but I don't think I should have to consider how it looks to others when I decide to join a talkpage. By the way, I'm not the only one who thinks he's hounding other editors. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"my...god..."

and you've got "some nerve" leaving kinds of uncivil comments. Westbender (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil there: you are hounding this user. The history is all there: don't make me lay it out for you, please. Find a new subject: WP is not a battleground. I'm giving you some good advice, and if you don't heed it it's all on you. It's a big wiki: leave LAEC alone. You've been warned, now... Doc talk 04:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been editing many articles. Others have merely been sparking arguments on talk pages. Thank you. Westbender (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

How about your next 30 edits (no time limit) have absolutely nothing to do with LAEC? No page he's ever been to. Because a massive percentage of your edits directly follow that account. Try it: it should be refreshing... Doc talk 04:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

So you are unilaterally banning me from editing particular topics? Even if I happen to share similar interests of other editors. that's laughable. Westbender (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a suggestion: I can't "ban" you from anything. You are clearly not a new editor based on your very first edit, and you appear to be a single-purpose account bent on harassing this editor. I've seen this kind of thing before: I'm giving you an "out". If you cannot refrain from following this editor within 30 edits: you are not here to build an encyclopedia (IMHO) but mostly to poke at him. If I have to figure out why... you will probably lose. Just move along, okay? Doc talk 04:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have not reviewed my edit history with any attention to detail or in an unbiased manner. Please refrain from offering me any "suggestions" in teh future. Kthxbye! Westbender (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

First edit, sixth edit, eleventh through fifteenth edits, sixteenth edit... do you just mean your early edits haven't been reviewed properly? Is this your first experience with LAEC? Doc talk 04:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You should know better...

Than to do this. They may have intended their comment to be their, they may not have, it isn't for you to decide, or change.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

See the history of the article page.[39][40] So the change was "there" before I corrected it (which you have reverted, making it as nonsensical as it was before: I doubt Dylan would have undid this edit). Thanks :> Doc talk 06:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I did see the page history, and they were clearly not replying to the person who used the out-indent template. And you can't really say that you've corrected it, because you really don't know if Dylan put it there on purpose. People have different ways of talking. And you really should know better than to refactor others' posts.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

So BeCritical was replying to Dylan's post (and not mine) a full two minutes before he even made it? Neither of the editors I corrected would have/did revert my edit. Choose your issues wisely, I always say. Cheers... Doc talk 06:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that's what I was saying; it isn't. Dylan was clearly replying to the post that was above his, not to the post you placed his under. There isn't any way you can really argue that discussion flow should only be used to determine who is replying to what. You also have to take the content of the post, and as to the content, Dylan was clearly replying to the person above him. Yes, he did insert his comment out of flow, but no, he was not replying to the person you placed his comment under. You say I should choose my issues wisely? I've done my research, but you should choose your words wisely, and learn not to put them in others' mouths.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You also don't seem to have taken into account that Dylan may have gone to sleep by now, and even more so, if they truly meant to place their comment where you did, they would have reverted me if they were still online.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Both users were replying to my post: you weren't involved there. How you brought yourself into it on this issue is pretty surprising. I'm not sure why you're making an issue out of this: but I will tell you that I believe you are wrong here. Straight up. Doc talk 07:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been involved with Dylan so much in the past. For someone who tells others to do research, you sure haven't done much yourself. Okay, Dylan was replying to your message. Yes, that is clear, and it is also clear why they put their message -under- yours. They were replying to you, so they put their message under yours. I don't see what is so hard to understand.. and I reverted you because your refactor placed their message one indent space under another users', making look like they replied to them, when they in fact had not. You shouldn't be moving around others' comments anyway.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan commented on my post 2 minutes after Becritical, and in the wrong place. Therefore, Becritical's response to me became an incorrect-looking thing that needed correcting by moving it back to its original place. There's "good" refactoring, and there's "bad" refactoring. When neither editor concerned raises an issue, and you do: you may not be choosing wisely. Jus' sayin'. Cheers... :> Doc talk 08:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop saying cheers when you obviously don't mean it. First of all, as said, Dylan hasn't complained because he has obviously gone to bed; when I was in a dispute with him before, this was around the time he went to bed, so that can hardly be used as an argument. Notice how he hasn't made a post any time after his reply to you? You also fail to address that your refactor made it look like they were replying to BeCritical.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see they are now back; I'm going to revert myself and let them know, then I'm done with this.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

"Cheers" is what you say when you "toast" someone: I'm always up for a drink :> It's not saying, "Love!" - it's saying have a sip of beer and deal with it. Dylan can speak for himself: I am not a "lyncher" of him, and no one needs to speculate on his sleeping habits. "That is all" ;> Doc talk 08:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers

Would you mind cleaning up the Alexandra Powers article. I added a reference and messed up. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you not seen the AN/I thread concerning you and your edits?[41] You should check it out and respond there: it's important... Doc talk 08:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars

I would give you another barnstar but am afriad people will talk. So, double the last one and thank God for you!

When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain? xoxoDocOfSoc (talk) 03

40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"This castle hath a pleasant seat; the air

Nimbly and sweetly recommends itself

Unto our gentle senses."

Happy New Year!!! Doc talk 12:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New year!! xoxoxoxo DocOfSoc (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

LOVE it! ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello! Why do you and User:HalfShadow have essentially the same signatue? HeyMid (contribs) 11:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Both fans of black and gray, I guess (in that order). I saw his after I made mine and thought about changing it, but I'm kinda lazy. :> Doc talk 11:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So, this was just coincidence? LoL, then, if that's the case. HeyMid (contribs) 11:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh Doc

The best you could remark was to out me?? I am ok with being called he. Sheeeesh! DocOfSoc (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not too many male users would have a Girl Scout infobox ;> Doc talk 06:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless they were the father of a girl scout, like me. However, I don't think the image is free, so I wouldn't have the stones to use it on my user page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh Jack, if you are a card carrying Girl Scout Guy, you have to have the stones! ;-)DocOfSoc (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, we have lots of guys in Girl Scouts. :p Few enough would be eating sauerkraut on my page to even NOTICE except Jack;-) You are a very Baaaad Man.:-D

"Come, you spirits

That tend on mortal thoughts! unsex me here" --Lady Macbeth, Act I, scene v DocOfSoc (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot read any Shakespeare so soon after listening to the Decembrists's Hazards of Love. that be some crazy, mind-bending stuff.

That said, I am off to R'lyeh, where eCthulhu texts and facebooks whilst dreaming - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I DO trust you. Yes, firecracker. Last remark was made before read your post. xoxo DocOfSoc (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC) "Fair is foul, and foul is fair." DocOfSoc (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just know he's right in allowing the comments to stay: I'd personally self-revert just to be AGeffin' safest. When you're attacked unjustifiably and unreasonably, you know I'll smoke 'em with all I got - but he's right to leave these comments. Respond to the comments professionally, reasonably: and the "truth" will win out. We can't "censor" them, when in any doubt. It takes all sorts to run this little thing, and we all gotta get along... ;> Doc talk 06:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Out, damned spot! out, I say! SR done almighty King. ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Well it's my destiny to be the king of pain"... Doc talk 07:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC) sigh...we have been there and back again. I heart you. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oversight

Hey Doc, in regards to this edit, it's best to go to WP:RFO directly and send email using the link on the page. That way someone is on it immediately (I had one today and the edit was deleted within the hour) and no more attention is drawn to it on-wiki, as Courcelles noted on Alison's talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I have some considerable experience with this user, and while this may have been no more "useful" than an instant level 5 vandalism template: it's quite appropriate for a banned user. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I mean, I'm sure it feels good, but it's kind of like beating a dead horse, and it appears to be an all-too personal comment. To each his own, I imagine. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

When the horse comes back for no reason for more deserved "beatings" after being banned from this site: you can't blame the ranch hands anymore. WP:DFTT applies, of course; but they have to be "wrangled" nonetheless. ;> Doc talk 04:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Abbey_Road#.22moved.22_crossing

The consensus is moving towards removing this ‘fact’ due to doubts on the reliability of the source (photographic evidence aside). Your thoughts in summing up would be welcome there. Cheers, Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Merrick infobox

Hi there, if you really want an infobox to be included in the Joseph Merrick article, could we discuss it first? I don't think one really adds any usefulness to the reader as everything contained in it is in the 1st sentence of the article. --BelovedFreak 16:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Most FA biographies have an infobox from what I've seen, and I was quite surprised that this one didn't as well. FA would be the ultimate goal for any article. Infoboxes are there for a reason, and that's why we use them. I don't think it's detrimental to the article at all, and at least one can quickly note the early age of his death at a glance without whipping out a calculator. I see you've reverted it: off to the talk page we go... Doc talk 17:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I will also note that you have a far greater number of edits than any other editor to this article: I would direct you to points 1 under "Actions" and 3 under "On revert"[42]. Still waiting for your response at the talk page... Doc talk 17:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there.--BelovedFreak 17:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding comment at ANI

Hi, I just want to correct one thing -- you wrote that I expressed a desire for recall. That isn't right -- it's just that during my RFA I made a promise to be open to recall using a specific process, but had been too lazy to set up the mechanism. I don't really have any desire to be recalled, but the fraught situation prompted me to get on the ball and set up the process just in case somebody wants to use it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction - I don't think you should recalled, either. You made a bold and unpopular move, but to ask for your "de-adminship" because of it is a bit much. Good luck :> Doc talk 00:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Doc, you've got email which has absolutely nothing to do with this project but is still important to me that you see. Please take a look and respond at your earliest convenience. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I did - I hope everything is alright. My serious condolences, and write back anytime. Doc talk 21:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I will, probably tomorrow. I am also talking to Doc #2 who knows about this kind of thing too. I'm ok just depressed and stressed and to be honest worried about some of the family.

On a different note, did the bitch just blank my page or was it worse, like the same bullshit she pulls. I don't know what her problem is but if this continues I'm going to ask not to revdel, if it continues then a after a couple of more, and ask for copies of the comments and file a formal complaint to the ISP informing them that if it doesn't stop it will be their responsibility about my health concerns because of it. She can't jeopardise someone like she has been with me, ISP's don't like that. I can prove if needed my medical and they will disconnect her. It's been done before. Sorry, I know I should WP:Deny but I'm sick of her crap already and as you know my frame of mind isn't in a good place for this. Sorry for venting but I can't help myself. Maybe in the morning I'll feel differently, at least with the swearing which I don't do here, and refactor this post. Feel free if you would like, I give you my permission to alter this posting. Talk to you tomorrow. Skag, you are the meanest, rudest person I've ever come across. Enjoy if you want but trust me if you like your ISP you will cease and desist. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again Doc. I just edit conflicted with you at Fred's talk page. We are both thinking the same thing. I am off for the night. I can't deal with her shit so later, --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Update: Her talk page is protected for a month. —C.Fred (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. She's been using dynamic IPs for quite some time and continues this sick campaign against Crohnie for reasons I cannot understand. She never seems to attack me, even though she's got far more reason to hate me for helping to get her off of this site for good. Hopefully the "one off" named accounts won't start up again like the last time. Thanks again, C. Fred... Doc talk 00:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! I appreciate both of you helping me. I don't understand why I'm under attack like this either.  :( I wish I did though. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Whack!

See {{Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Arbitration}}, specifically the first two points. Threaded-dialogue is inappropriate for arbitration statements. Cheers, Gold Hat (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A "littlun" trout. A "minnow" I mean. Priceless! Thanks for clearing that up. You know as well as I do that the thread's pretty useless: your restrictions were already lifted... by you. You know, we were getting along great until your input at the SRQ AN/I banning discussion several months ago, and I guess I'm still a bit "miffed" as to why you chose to sound your buzzer there. But, water under the bridge, right? No more unsolicited comments from this member of the peanut gallery. Cheers... Doc talk 00:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You're catching on; ya can't say I didn't warn you. Thanks for your input; it *was* useful, to me, albeit not as useful as Dream Focus's actions. Thread's dead, baby; thread's dead. But that was expected, and you can expect an un-conflated motion request in due course. HTH ;) Gold Hat (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope "HTH" means "Hope That Helps" and not the first "definition"[43] ;> As I said, no more negative comments from me concerning your role here; I was just getting tired of seeing the thread. Cheers, Jack... Doc talk 23:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

On a totally unrelated topic, I didn't want to comment at AN/I concerning your post containing "A Right to Bear Glocks" but... what a hilariously uneducated op-ed piece of trash from a New York Times liberal fear-monger! Glocks are the favored sidearm of most police officers in the U.S.,[44] (mostly because of their safety and reliability features); and there was never a "ban" on sales of semi-automatic handguns in this country to civilians. Ever. The 30-round magazine is a different story (as are so-called "assault weapons" which were "kinda restricted" in 1994). That reporter could use a NRA gun safety course, which would dispel a lot of the "mystery" surrounding the Glock (and firearms in general) for her. "Guns don't kill people: people kill people." And there are a lot more responsible Glock owners out there than there are "wacko nutjobs" whose rare and horrific crimes feed the hysteria to ban guns. 2nd Amendment, baby! Live it, love it... Doc talk 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

still trolling my edits, huh? and Gail Collins uneducated? Bzzt. and recall the well regulated militia clause of that 'right'. Gold Hat (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

AN/I is watched by thousands of editors, and I responded here, not there; "trolling" your edits would mean following you around to articles that I have no history of editing. "Lighten up", Jack ;P And yes, Gail Collins is woefully uneducated on gun control to write those things, as is the Brady spokesman. It's called a "liberal bias". As a proud, responsible, educated (and quite legal) owner of several guns, I know exactly what I'm talking about, unfortunately. Cheers... Doc talk 23:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, when the Glock first made news in this country, liberals "freaked" because the gun frame is made from high-tech polymers, prompting unwarranted speculation into "plastic guns" that could somehow pass through metal detectors. It was a load of pure "hooey". HTH ;> Doc talk 23:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

why bother. Jack Merridew 09:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You got the wrong one here, Jack. Don't bother ;P Doc talk 09:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was actually going to put up some diffs... then thought the better of it. Don't call me a "troll" again, and I won't put them up. I try to discuss gun politics with you, and you talk about me and not the content of the argument. But you're always welcome here, Jack. I don't care who your friends are. Cheers ;> Doc talk 10:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I hope this doesn't change things but after reading this I thought you should know that I am one of those liberals you are talking about. :) I guess it's best we don't talk politics huh!? --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• • You're a *sputter* liberal? That's tears it - you are hereby banned for life from this talk page! For three weeks... ;P Doc talk 00:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Merrick signature

Hi, I saw your discussion on the talk page about adding his signature. I don't know how to but you can look at the Cher article and see how it was done there and who did it. If you can't figure out how to than at least you have a name to go ask for help. I thought this might be of some use to you. :) Also, check your email, it's important personal info there for you to see before it's too late. Have a good one, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Crohnie - I'll look into the sig thing. Responded to the e-mail, and good luck with that. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom notification

There is an ARBCOM request which is related to an AN/I thread you recently participated. You may be interested in the discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and sorry about the late reply. I've been watching it, and it's gone in the direction I figured it might. Cheers :> Doc talk 00:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The/the Beatles

Yes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link [45] and leave your vote. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks muchly

for this. Probably the highest concentration of invective I have yet received in my Wikipedia !career. Favonian (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh - anytime! When I see the "repeating characters" tag on pages I watch, then see crap like that, it's a really quick no-brainer when it comes to rollback. What a jerk! Shut 'em down quick and hard, and hopefully they'll go away eventually. In a perfect world, at least. Cheers :> Doc talk 14:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for being a "talk page stalker" and commenting at death panel. your comments are/were appreciated. Jesanj (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

i was thinking of making an argument on the talk page. but i have a question. am i generally correct here when i talk about the "necessary evil" of staying on topic? additionally, is there a relevant policy or guideline you would refer me to? thanks again. Jesanj (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

One things that often gets mentioned in various ways is "Dicuss edits, not editors" or "Comment on content, not contributors" - that sort of thing. It seems to be from an essay, [[WP:NOSPADE]], but I'll see if I can find the examples in policy. I know at WP:CIVIL under "Avoiding incivility" it states, "Especially when things are getting heated, remember to explain your edit, avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with, and consider using the talk page to further explain your view of the situation." So staying "on topic" as far as the topic and not editors is absolutely correct: let me know if you meant something else. As far as major changes occurring, this subsection of WP:Editing policy applies. Above in the same policy it says "Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability." Being bold is great, but it should be done within policy. This is another essay I came across that details why blanking sections is bad (including removing references) by pointing out policies. Cheers :> Doc talk 09:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen

I have reported Hauskalainen at the admin notice board. Here is the link [46]. Intermittentgardener (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

Hi, did you miss me? <wink> I have to say this year has started out about as strange as it could. This past week was exhausting too but I'm finally out of the hospital, again, and I hope to keep it that way. :) I sent you emails too so heads up. I'll be on here probably a bit at a time. My strength needs to come back plus I'm back on the evil prednisone. Back up to 80 mg and weaning down over the next three weeks, yuck, though great for my appetite, lousy for sleeping, which can make me go from one side of behavior to the other and every emotion in between. Anyways, just dropping in to let you know I am out, well first why I disappeared and that I'm out in case you didn't see my quick comment on my talk page. Take care and talk soon, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, did you see this Wikipedia:Town sheriff? I'm trying to see what it's all about but my focus is lousy and I'm trying to catch up on discussions there so it's slow going for me to actually understand what this is about. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back! I'll check my e-mail. This "town sheriff" thing? Not so sure about that one. It'll be interesting to watch. Cheers :> Doc talk 13:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! If I read the Town sheriff thing, than I think you fall into the title now as sheriff. (hee, hee) Like I said the steroids are going to have me 'weird' for awhile or should I say weirder?  :) Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

re your take on 'disruption', 'winning' etc

Honestly I don't recall if you asked me not to post here, so I will take the liberty.. Normally I would give an editor the benefit of doubt about 'scare quotes' around phrasing they're using for emphasis or effect, but with you I'm more than weary. I hope you can understand that. -PrBeacon (talk)

I don't care who posts here, as long as it's not a vandal or troll. I'm not really afraid of "tough warnings" from admins contacted, either: blocks are to be preventative, not punitive. I was already done posting there, so I was a little surprised to see the "cavalry" ride in so late ;P Well, I said what I had to about the list, and I haven't been following you around (as edit histories and the passage of time will demonstrate). I watch Glen Gale's page (and LAEC's and yours, among many others), and I'd seen what happened recently and kept out of it until then. Cheers :> Doc talk 12:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I wasn't referring to the warning, I didn't know it was there when I posted the above note. I was merely trying to move off Gwen's page because it was getting ridiculoso. I still think you assume the worst and often only see what fits that assumption, but not consistently. You claim to make disruption your business, but did you ever apply the tough love to LAEC? Doesn't look like it. -PrBeacon (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did for your pal Dylan, and he didn't want to hear it. My advice was "wrong", but he's the one who is indeffed, none the wiser for listening to me. LAEC never had a chance from what I can see. I said disruption was part of what I work on: I also add referenced content[47] and fix references, along with combating petty vandalism on all sorts of pages. FWIW: I'm pretty sure if that particular admin had blocked me for "one more word", the block would have been overturned. He and I were involved in a somewhat nasty prior dispute where he accused me and others without any evidence of improper behavior: falls under "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." My behavior was neither disruptive nor personally attacking, and to threaten a block for ambiguous reasons in that fashion was not hardly warranted. Sorry if I got a little harsh with you, but you weren't exactly bringing out my "warm and fuzzy" side, you know ;> In conclusion: a)LAEC is indeffed, b)I brought up what I did for the reasons I did and no other, and c)I expect this to be the end of this particular matter. You go your way and I'll go mine, and hopefully if we meet again it will be under more pleasant circumstances. Cheers :> Doc talk 14:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Robbie Robertson

Yes, he's "pretending to sing", and I'm not making it up, it's all on Levon's book. As for his solo career, it got nothing to do with The Band; Manuel, Danko and Helm were viewed as the vocalists of the group. I'd rather cite Levon himself:

• "'To Kingdom Come' was Robbie's song, and he sang it - the last time he sang on one of our records for years. Robbie didn't sing, wasn't a singer, didn't like to sing, but he sang on this one" (This Wheel's on Fire, p.166)

• About Woodstock: "We felt we didn't play a bad set, but it wasn't totally up to our standard since Robbie's microphone had been inadvertenly left on, and he wasn't much as a singer". (p. 200)

• About Last Waltz: "We played a full show (with Robertson's microphone turned off to avoid the kind of problem we'd had at Woodstock)..." (p. 263) "The film was edited so it looked like Robbie was conducting the band with expansive waves of his guitar neck. The muscles of his neck stood out like cords when he sang so powerfully into his switched-off microphone..." (p. 276)

--viniciusmc 02:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

More on the first album: "One of the oddest concoctions ever recorded by the Band followed it. 'To Kingdom Come' was written and sung by Robertson (his only lead vocal until 'Knockin' Lost John' in 1976 - Danko was always on him to sing more), aided and abetted in the vocal department by Danko and Manuel." The History of The Band - The Debut Album. --viniciusmc 03:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I was in the audience today for an interview with Robbie Robertson at WFUV (Fordham University Radio) and took the picture that's now in his infobox. In the interview (which will air around April 5th), he says he's never read Levon's book (I imagine the two are still not "warm and cozy" with each other). Levon's book is a reliable source, but when Allmusic, album credits and video footage all come together: Robbie Robertson is credited with "vocals". We have to go with a consensus of reliable sources, and these agree. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is, even if he sang on a couple of songs, that wasn't representative of his work with The Band (live or in studio). If you really want to follow allmusic and album credits, then instead of the actual opening sentence (that cites only the most know instruments of each member, all of them multi-instrumentalist) the sentence must be something like: "The original group consisted of Canadians Rick Danko (bass guitar, double bass, fiddle, trombone, acoustic bass, acoustic guitar, vocals), Garth Hudson (keyboard instruments, saxophones, trumpet, accordion, piccolo, woodwind, bass), Richard Manuel (piano, drums, baritone saxophone, conga, clavinet, keyboards, vocals), Robbie Robertson (guitar, acoustic guitar, clavinet, melodica, keyboards, vocals), and American Levon Helm (drums, mandolin, guitar, harp, vocals)." --viniciusmc 07:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should read like that if other members are credited with multiple instruments: they were well-known as a multi-instrumentalist band. We, as Wikipedians, don't discern between what could be construed as a "representative" of an artist's work, and this falls under WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Credits from reliable sources are what we publish, and we are obligated to do that. Garth is the only member I can find that doesn't ever really get vocal credits, but Robbie certainly does. I didn't make these rules, and I know you are only acting in good faith, believe me :> We just have to credit Robbie Robertson with vocal credits because reliable sources prove that he was credited with them. Thanks for responding, and I'm more than open to bringing any other opinions on a wider scale if you still disagree. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edit

I was just following this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scottish_Americans#Actors.2FEntertainers

Also, being a Scottish American myself with the surname Dean I can tell you it hails from Kilbride area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.171.240 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"The" versus "the Beatles"

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

Funny, I mentioned reliable sources in my edit comment, so presenting the links to me as if I was unaware of the concept is a bit uncivil. As far as why, that is irrelevant, as other killers have been proven to have done so. Presumably the original victim list came from a source even if it was not directly cited at the time. Your removing it because you cannot fathom such a possibility is your own original conclusion / original research and can and was reverted for specifically that reason. If you would like to change it, you should provide the source. If we both insist upon sources and do not get one then maybe the whole count should be removed as speculative at this time. But you do not get to pick your own preferred version with no source to back it up because of your own particular take on the situation. DreamGuy (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I can "fathom" quite a bit, actually. I responded on your talk page: no need for duplicate threads. Cheers... Doc talk 03:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Franklin coverup hoax

Hi there. I saw your remarks on Dreamguy's User Talk page, and you seem knowledgeable about the requirements of WP:RS. Please participate in the discussion here: [48] There's a debate about the use of a source published by a tiny publishing firm. A book by a guy named Nick Bryant. Please let us know your thoughts on the matter. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I'll look into it, but it may take a little while. Since TrineDay doesn't even have an article here, their notability might be questionable (although they are on Amazon.com). A search for TrineDay shows they are not used too much on this site.[49] Doc talk 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Brian Jones

Hi there, Doc9871. I read your editing of the Brian Jones article. I haven't got any problem with it. However, the fact remains that is barely (or even not?) audible. Do all these facts have to be backed by a source? Just a thought, thank you! Zapspace (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

All it would take is one source, I would think. Otherwise it's an opinion (even if it's true). We can only report what other sources say, not draw our own conclusions as editors. With all the books and articles written about Jones there must be something out there that would back it up. Cheers :> Doc talk 23:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)