User talk:DoctorJoeE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Information.png
  • If I left you a message on your talk page, please answer on your talk page. There is no need to let me know, since I will have added your talk page to my watch list; but if you want to be sure I see it, you can ping me there, or simply drop a note on this page.
  • If you leave me a message here, I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and I will ping you to let you know.
  • Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked.
Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message.
Information.png
If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human; I make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion.
  • While I do use the ping function a lot, as noted above, you can expedite communication by keeping my talk page on your watchlist.
  • In the interest of keeping this page relatively brief and manageable, after a section has not been edited for a month it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. I do, of course, reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.



Current Real-Life Workload: 4.5

  • 1 = minimal work pressure
  • 5 = middling
  • > 5 = please don't count on a prompt response
  • 10 = frenzied
  • 11 = Up to 11



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

Stade Roland Garros[edit]

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

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

Theatre Project collaboration[edit]

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

"WP convention is to include nicknames"[edit]

Unfortunately many people think this is the case and this treating of readers as morons is increasing. However, WP:MOSBIO disagrees. It is acceptable to put a stage name after the dates, but it is far from necessary if the name appears in the article title and nicknames should certainly not appear in the middle of the full name. It's a trend that is in need of reversal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't find any "quite specific" prohibition of nicknames in WP:MOSBIO. The closest I could find was, "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name" -- which is quite a way from "nicknames should certainly not appear". It's also worth noting that professional names are not synonymous with nicknames. Bud Abbott was known professionally and personally as Bud, in the same way that everyone knows James Earl Carter, Jr. as Jimmy.
While I can't disagree that nicknames are "not always necessary", is the point important enough to warrant eliminating them from literally hundreds (or thousands) of articles, only to watch them creep back in? Assuming that you think it is, you might consider trying to gain consensus for a wholesale change, rather than undertaking it unilaterally and, perhaps, discovering that not everyone considers it as good an idea as you do. I've been doing this long enough to find that changes that appear ineluctable to me are often anything but. Example: I and others thought it rather obvious that the Burma article should be moved to Myanmar, given that the country itself has been known officially as Myanmar for almost 27 years -- until we opened a hornet's nest by suggesting it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing unilateral about it. There's already consensus that nicknames should not be included within full names. You'll notice that if you look at WP:MOSBIO that this construction is used nowhere. There's not so much problem with them being used after the individual's dates, but it's rarely necessary if that version of the name appears as the article title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I can't really disagree - though I haven't seen any evidence of this "consensus" that you speak of (which doesn't mean it's not there, of course). My hunch is that editors will gradually add them back, but we'll see. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do with wikipedia[edit]

I'm the survivor of 4 separate malignant melanomas and a patient of Dr. Harold Rabinovitz of the U of Miami if you don't remember. Anyway back in the days I had my first melanoma biopsies (1993 and 94) come back I had some wider excisions done by a Plas. surgeon who since lost his medical license. His care of me was fine, but Mark Schreiber is back in the news[1] As for what, Oi Vei is all I say and I'm Roman Catholic....William 19:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: I know somewhat more about this yahoo than most, or than I really want to. A friend of mine was on the Florida State Board when he first came to their attention in the '90s. He vehemently opposed the Board's initial disciplinary decision (a wrist slap), and was proven right, unfortunately, after he killed a couple of people. I know that hindsight is an exact science, but they waited way too long to get him off the streets. His diagnosis is fairly obvious, at least to me, but if I told you here (publicly), I might run into trouble with the WP:BLP police.
One thought, after reading through this latest grotesque scenario, in a long line of them -- without any inference of blaming the victim, and with appropriate empathy for his current situation, you have to question the intelligence of the patient in question: He goes to an unlicensed practitioner (presumably after legitimate people advised him to leave well enough alone) to have Mr. Happy inflated with goodness knows what sort of filler material -- and then, when that turns out badly, he goes to another unlicensed practitioner, seeking to have the process reversed! What could possibly go wrong? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, DoctorJoeE. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Myanmar[edit]

Hi, I saw your reply on the Burma->Myanmar move and thought I'd reply here instead. I don't see why the RM discussion for an article should take place anywhere besides its own talk page. Considering the fact that at least two of the participants in the RM are admins (and they are fine with it being conducted on the Burma talk page), it should be OK to cast your vote there.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: A message within the article's talk page box reads, "Discussion of the title should be kept at Talk:Burma/Myanmar." I assume that a separate talk page was created expressly for RM discussions so that the normal talk page could be reserved for routine article improvement dialog, but I don't know for sure. That decision was made some time ago, without my input. I suspect that someone will soon copy the current RM discussion over to Talk:Burma/Myanmar, because that's what has happened in the past. If you feel strongly that that should not happen, you will need to take it up with whoever moves it. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Do Cowboys Ride? -- Is That What They "Do"?[edit]

@DoctorJoeE: Regarding your rather, I dare say "somewhat snarky" edit-summary remark accompanying your edit of Shane on 2015-08-07: "Cowboys ride; that's what they do" --- Gee! - I didn't know that. And, having grown up in Wyoming, about a day's ride on horseback from where the film was shot in 1951, am really glad that you enlightened all of us. (I have a very fond childhood memory of being taken there by my parents --- in a car, not on horseback --- to watch for a couple days, while Geo. Stevens and a bunch of Hollywood city-slickers that couldn't shoot or ride very well were filming on location up in Jackson Hole.) As for your and my respective edits, however, you might have noted (though apparently not) that my proximate edit, just prior to your edit, had to do with repetitive use of the same wording in two consecutive paragraphs, not whether cowboys ride or not. You a cowboy? --- Professor JR (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Professor JR: Dare I say that you're being a trifle over-sensitive? Of course I noticed that you were eliminating a repetitive verb - even though the same verb separated by an entire paragraph is not the most vile grammatical sin ever. You might have noted (though apparently not) that I did not change it back -- I just went with something less boring and pedestrian. Cowboys didn't go to town, they rode to town -- hence the (mildly clever, I thought) edit summary. No one would confuse me with a cowboy, although I do ride, and my daughter trains horses professionally. You were fortunate to have watched Shane being filmed. Unfortunately, the western movie is a dead genre; only one decent one (Unforgiven) has been made in the last 50 years or so. BTW, no need to ping me on my own talk page. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


Stones on Sullivan[edit]

@Heteren: The Rolling Stones appeared on the Sullivan show six times total, with the last two times being the mentioned January 15, 1967 performance where the lyrics to 'Let's Spend the Night Together' where altered, and the appearance of November 18, 1969. They did not appear on the show between these two days. The reference given is false. See: http://www.nzentgraf.de/books/tcw/works1.htmHeteren (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Heteren: The place to make your case is on the article talk page, not mine. And there is nothing on the link you cited (a list of books and fanzines) that supports your version of events. You have to cite a specific page in a specific reliable source. Please don't revert again unless you can do that. I will check the cited Sullivan biography tonight (the book is at home), and if the citation is incorrect I will change it. It's a small point, and you could be right, but we can't just take your word for it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Checked the source, corroborated it, made the change with additional citation. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) which affects the recently renamed page Myanmar. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA[edit]

You realise it's giving an example saying that no comma separating the year on both ends is wrong and that when written as "October 1, 2011" there needs to be a comma at both ends of "2011" so that it gets written as "October 1, 2011," right? It's only saying that, when written as "October 1, 2011" not having the comma at the end of 2011 is wrong. It is NOT saying that proper sentence structure should be ignored.

When writing in proper English (which is what we should be using on wikipedia), here is when you use commas (and you can look this up to see that I'm right and check with the good people at Manual of Style if you wish):

  • Ex. #1: "In 1968, something happened."
  • Ex. #2: "On Wednesday, something else happened."
  • Ex. #3: "At 4PM, another something happened."

Cheers! Please stop reverting and making errors on wikipedia, that's not what we're here for.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: Why is it that people who end notes with "Cheers" are invariably so cheerless? If you are wedded to the edicts of "official" style manuals, the British ones do not recommend commas in such situations, while American ones usually do. The custom at WP is that if a comma is necessary to avoid ambiguity, you should use one; if the sentence is clear with or without a comma, you should not. (Somewhere in the MOS it says, "The modern trend is to minimize the use of commas.") In this situation, "In 1968 something happened" is just as clear as "In 1968, something happened", so commas are not necessary. Also, why did you insist on changing only those two sentences, while leaving the other dozen or more similar sentences in the article unchanged? It seems to me that you're just being stubborn, rather than crusading for metaphysical certitude in punctuation.
With all due respect: You will not endear yourself to anyone in the community with snide remarks like, "Please stop making errors, that's not what we're here for" -- as if anyone thinks he or she is here to make errors. I've been here long enough to realize that you get a lot more done and get along much better with other editors if you remain courteous and civil, even when you feel know you are right about some earthshaking issue like punctuation. Best of luck in future editing endeavors. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Best of luck to you too! I'm glad we were able to resolve any misunderstandings as to the link you provided. Once again... Cheers!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
One quick other thing: Hollywood is in the US and a page about something in the US should use American English. As for what sentences I edited and which I didn't... Well, fine. I'll go fix all of them in that article when I have the time. It just so happens, I only fixed the ones in the section I read.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cebr1979: I'm not sure we resolved anything, if you still think that commas are absolutely necessary in this situation. But you may have already noticed that another editor has resolved that particular issue with a suitable compromise. That's how things should - and in most situations, do - work here. Life is too short to quibble over commas. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ya, I left him a message too. Odd you find making mistakes to be a "suitable compromise." I really don't think errors are "how things should work here." In any case, have yourself a good day. I'm off to continue making wikipedia better (ie: with less mistakes). Cheerio!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
And as he replied, his edit respects all conventions of English grammar and the Wikipedia MOS when it comes to a date appearing in the middle of a sentence. If a sentence can be rephrased to avoid a construct other editors find problematic, that is often the best course of action (certainly better than edit warring over it), and fits every definition I've ever seen of "suitable compromise". He is right. I would strongly suggest that you drop the stick on this one. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep, his edit was better. My mistake on that one! Cheerio!Cebr1979 (talk) 22
33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)