User talk:Doc9871/Archive 1

It's sourced, so I'm fine with letting the statement stand. But if you don't mind, I'll mention parenthetically that it was measured over his last three seasons. This is just so the reader understands that it is not a typical "career" stat, and is contrary to the usual qualification standard (e.g., see [1]). In all likelihood, I would expect his true career average was higher since the tabulation only occurred as his career was winding down. — Myasuda (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You edited the Please Please Me page and provided this edit summary, "'Lennon/McCartney' was the original credit; certainly listing as 'McCartney/Lennon' for the first album is ridiculous." That is not correct, and not ridiculous. For their early singles, and their first UK album, McCartney's name came first. The consensus opinion among the many editors who edit Beatle-related articles is to show the credits in the order they appeared on the original UK releases. As a result, I have reverted your edit.

I agree with some of your other recent edits were you have made the track listing sections for later albums consistent by always using "Lennon/McCartney". I think other editors were trying to be explicit about which Lennon and which McCartney, but I don't think that's necessary. In any case, the album articles ought to be consistent. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to this entry. I have no problem with the substance of your edits yesterday, just with the use of "minor." "Believin'" vs. "Believing" and the "Legacy and Influences" section have both been discussed in the talk page ("To G, or not to G" and "Legacy Section"--the latter being archived). Both of these edits were substantive, not minor (although the third edit, catching one additional G, was minor). Dave Golland (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, they were substantive rather than minor edits, and I'll not mark larger edits such as these as minor in the future. "Believing" to "Believin'" had to be purged after I forced the page change, and that I thought was minor as it was just changing one incorrect name to the correct one (despite the number of times it had to be changed). As far as my other edit, it was a major change to the article, but it needed to be removed as opinionated, unreferenced, etc. Should not have marked as a minor edit at all. Thanks... Doc9871 (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Journey "Niceness"You can "yipe yipe yipe" all day, but it won't help. Experienced editors tire of these whinings very quickly, and crave only entries from contributors with BALLS, not cherrystones. Don't be that guy who needs to be drop-kicked like an insufferable lap-dog. Try also not to be too offended by edits that may hurt your precious feelings, but simply happen to coincide with the truth...

In short: toughen up, or be prepared to cry yourself to sleep on a daily/nightly basis. This isn't for kindergarteners...

"I've got your name... I've got your ass!!!" Doc9871 (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I copied and pasted this. This is what was found on my user talk. It was written by you today.I feel that you owe me a specific explanation as to what this all means. I consider this to be harrassment. Especially since I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking about a particular edit? What is it with these remarks? Would you kindly be specific? Runt (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Runt, I sincerely apologize. I'd didn't even intend to send this to you in the first place, and it was just a draft of something that got accidentally sent. I certainly don't want you to feel harassed or threatened, and I in know way have any problem with you or your edits. My language was exceedingly harsh, and I was venting about something stupid that I would have edited later were I to send it at all. Please accept my sincere and embarrassed apology, and rest assured you'll not see a post like this again... Doc9871 (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, Runt, I certainly never meant for you to cancel your user page. You seem to have made quite a few edits, and I made a simple mistake. Don't cancel yourself like that. Sorry, chief... Doc9871 (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Only recently did I read this article in depth and my first reaction was that it was too far gone to save but maybe the time is right to get it corrected. The discussion should continue so the "Eagles is" proponents will have to make a valid, logical argument supporting their view (which will be impossible). Verb usage is not debatable and could be changed immediately without controversy but it might be better to tackle it all in one revision. Perhaps some examples from books or major newspapers and music magazines showing the prevailing use of "the Eagles" will be convincing. I already cited several interviews on the talk page where the band members consistently refer to themselves as "the Eagles" and so far there hasn't been any response from anyone arguing against. More examples from respected publications should help. Piriczki (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I also have seen zero convincing arguments from "Eagles is" (I like that) "proponents". I only see the change made, with the reasoning "The band's name is Eagles.", or, "No 'The' in band's title." Nothing more, and either no one from that camp is paying attention to the talk page, or they lack ability to assemble a reasonable argument (which, as you point out, cannot succeed). More people are chiming in on the right side, so perhaps this will snowball and the "flat-earthers" will see the curvature. Experimental changes, followed by noting who reverts them and contacting them, is the first step in at least getting the opposition to organize itself. And further examples from more reputable sources can only help... Doc9871 (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:RMeisner1977.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done what you've asked, and hopefully we can keep this historically irreplaceable image on WP... Doc9871 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

After replying to the talk page, I looked into this a little more. The current location of the code that handles the template background colour is here:

Template:Infobox musical artist/color

The section of documentation that needs changing, is also in a page by itself, located here:

Template:Infobox musical artist/doc/type

This documentation cleverly references the colour-choosing code, so that if someone changes the background colour for any value, the documentation immediately changes. A neat idea, but harder to experiment with. What you would have to do, to propose the change, is:

(1) copy the "color" page to a personal sub-page, and add a new value and colour. Actually, the contents of this page are quite simple, so it should be easy for a non-technical person to do. I had suggested the new colour could be pink; try hex code "FFCCCC" for pale pink.

(2) copy the "doc/type" page to another personal sub-page, and change the documentation to the proposed instructions. Add a new line to the chart of examples, and you should only need to point to your other new sub-page for the line(s) with new or changed colours.

(3) when it's all ready, transclude the second sub-page to the template talk page, as your proposal.

If it sounds to you like I've done this kind of thing before, you're sadly mistaken! But if you want, I can give it a try. Since it's YOUR suggestion, I didn't want to do it without checking with you, if you would rather figure it out yourself. (Or if you're thinking of chickening out.) If I were to attempt it, I would be creating sub-pages of your user page, not mine, so you can take credit for it (or take the blame if I screw it up). Also, I'm not going to do the actual visible rewriting of the instructions; that's your baby. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your interest and excellent advice on this matter. While a quick check of my edit history clearly shows that I never shy away from a fight, and am "aggressive" to say the least, this is truly a massive change, and I'd probably be "in a world of shit" if I tried to implement it in a "rogue" fashion (which I'd prefer ;>). I'm trying the other option first - garnering heavy political support before submitting a proposal that cannot be defeated. Old alliances will emerge, and this change will come soon. Please keep me informed of your opinion (& BTW: credit is never something I take for myself, as I'm nothing without those who help)... Doc9871 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am glad some editors share my view about the "writer" field! ([2]) — John Cardinal (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Anytime, John. I'm 100% behind official credit in the Infobox, for all artists. The Hey Jude "credit battle" is logically over; now random IP users attempt to sneak it in (sour grapes perhaps?). We both know it's not going work that easily, however ;> Keep up the good work... Doc9871 (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no evidence either way, but I don't suspect any of the named editors who had the opposite point of view. It is odd that IPs have begun to drift in and redo the edit, but perhaps the smoke that emanates from the various discussions draws them in... — John Cardinal (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just kidding about "sour grapes"; I know the dissenting editors involved in the "Jude" discussion wouldn't stoop that low. I find the general level of intelligent editing to be well above average for The Beatles, which is appropriate for, in my opinion, pretty much the best band that ever was (well, after Milli Vanilli at least) ;>

I'm wondering what you think about a substantially major Infobox change I'm working on (see most recent discussion on Template talk:Infobox musical artist). I'm not the first who's tried this, and I'm trying to get as much feedback as possible from good editors before I propose a change, as I want it to pass. I would value your opinion on this, whether it's for or against the "proposed proposal". Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: cite all information you add. That's all I ask. If you want, I can recommend some Beatles books. If you need help citing sources, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. It's poor form to include blocks of uncited text in an article, and it falls to you to provide sources if you want to keep that info in the article; see WP:BURDEN. If you want, you can write out a revision of the page first on a user page, then move it to the main article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the editing advice. It's not my "first day", but I'll take it in stride. I was 16 when "The One I Love" hit the airwaves, and remember it well (didn't know 'til recently you were an R.E.M. fan; I have every album and have always loved 'em). You are absolutely correct about blocks of uncited text, and that won't happen again. No problems here... Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I never meant to get off on the wrong foot with you. I've written several Featured Articles on Wikipedia, so I know a thing or two about writing music articles. I'm always willing to help people work on music articles. If you ever want advice or help, feel free to ask me. I also have access to a lot of sources. Need help verifying something? I'm always happy to do some research. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool! We're all here for the same reasons; to improve the site and educate those who access it by providing them with factual information. You and I never really had a problem; you showed me my mistake and I corrected it. I have a thick skin, and learn from more experienced editors like yourself (& then from my own mistakes), rather than pout and react negatively. I would always rather end an edit war than engage in one before it even was warranted.

I just may take you up on your offer of help, especially with the Eagles, and possibly Journey, as both are hugely commercially successful and deserving of FA status. Peace ... Doc9871 (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have access to Rock's Back Pages, which is a website that reprints old music press articles. And as you may have gathered, I. have a lot of R.E.M. books. I purposely designed R.E.M. to act as a template for music band FAs. Take a look at it. Not every article will have the same layout, but it's representative of what we should be trying to achieve with articles on highly-popular and written-about rock bands. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very well done article - believe me, I've seen it before, as I'm a big R.E.M. fan. I especially love the 132 references! If this treatment could be achieved with the Eagles (the #1 best-selling American band ever), the Wikipedia music articles would only gain further credence. I've been working sporadically on Eagles stuff... I should first ask if you are a fan of the band? BTW - my absolute favorite R.E.M. song "you never hear about" is "Wendell Gee". Freaking gorgeous... Doc9871 (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really into the Eagles, althought I like radio staples "Hotel California" and "Life in the Fast Lane". I'm more partial to Journey, actually. Personally, I generally favor bands with strong melodies and heavy emphasis on guitar (particulary if it's distorted). So my favorite artists include Beatles, Nirvana, Husker Du, Smashing Pumpkins, Green Day, Led Zeppelin, R.E.M., although there are some exceptions (bass is more often than not the lead instrument in Joy Division, Prince will use whatever he wants as a means to an end, and Depeche Mode is at its best when they are completely electronic). I'm sure they should have at least two or three well-researched biographies available on the Eagles. Finding well-sourced biographies is key when writing band articles; the author will done most of the heavy work for you, combing through old articles and reviews and summarizing them. As for my favorite underappreciated R.E.M. song, that's "Harborcoat". The way Buck plays on the verses is awesome. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Harborcoat" is excellent. Love the first EP stuff, esp. "Wolves, Lower" and "Carnival of Sorts (Box Cars)". I was a huge Nirvana fan ever since they came out during my sophomore year in college, and they were a huge influence on my personal musical taste. Prince is a musical artist almost worthy of his own category (like Frank Zappa).

And by the way, R.E.M. is a perfect illustration of the problems concerning The Beatles crediting problems. R.E.M. always credited their compositions as "Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe" (in alphabetical order), regardless of who wrote the bulk of any given song. Lennon/McCartney was arguably the prototype for this "unselfishness" of credit? Perhaps... Doc9871 (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The main difference is that there's so much research on the Beatles it's quite well-documented who actually authored what in many cases. In R.E.M.'s case, all the band members generally did the write the songs together (and Stipe always writes his lyrics and comes up with his vocal parts), while solo compositions are largely exceptions (for example, Mike Mills wrote "{Don't Go Back to) Rockville" and Bill Berry wrote "Everybody Hurts"). But I don't want to get back into that again . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We're all good. Everything is copacetic, and I'm certain we will both only aid in improving WP. Cheers, mate :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want, I can give you my detailed critique on where these pages need improvement. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely would want! As I said, I'm more interested in the Eagles, but seeing as I forced the Don't Stop Believin' correction change, I'm obviously wanting both bands to make it to FA as quickly as possible. Any feedback (& help) would be greatly appreciated not only by me, but for all others who want to see correct information. Keep me posted... Doc9871 (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, to start, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Summary style. This will help you focus on creating concise, well-written prose. You are always writing for a general audience, not hardcore fans. So in the lead section, you want to explain the groups for those who have never heard of them. Start out general, then ease the reader into specifics. For example, if a band it noted for contributing to specific rock subgenres, I start out with "Soandso is a American rock band formed in . . ." Then I list the menbers describe the band's sound, etc. You will need three to five paragraphs, depending on the length of the article. The lead section is supposed to reflect the contents of the article (as a result you shouldn't require citations in the lead, except in special circumstances), so I usually leave that last after I've written everything else. Never start out with how great they are by listing sales and awards out of the gate (why should the readers care if they have no idea about the band in the first place?). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, always keep in mind which details are better suited for subarticles like pages on albums or songs. With these more specifc items, only include what is necessary for context. For an example, note how I wrote about the R.E.M. albums in that article. I detailed only what was necessary for context (recording process, the year of release, any specific musical traits that are pivotal in that point in the band's career, and notable hits). There's no superfluous specific details; that's why you have links to the album pages. At most you want a pararaph on an album; if you're writing more than that, you're probably including too much specific information that belongs in the album page. Compare the paragraph on Reckoning with Reckoning (R.E.M. album) (which I also wrote). That's why summary style is great; it keeps you focused on the true topic of the article, which is the band, not the band's albums, songs, music, awards, etc. At the end of the day, that's the focus: the band as a whole. Remember that, and you'll avoid bogging the article down with miscellanea and trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, you see that three paragraph section on Desperado? That can easily be condensed to one. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This pitifully unreferenced section is soon to disappear. Unreferenced and poorly written. Gotta go to real-life work, but will correct this section soon... Doc9871 (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How's about throwing me back a Barnstar?! It'll be my first, and you can pick anyone you want. I'm still absorbing the info... Doc9871 (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's how you format citations: Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to format citations. Personally, I'd recommend avoiding the cite templates. it's much easier and less cluttered if you format everything yourself. WesleyDodds (talk)

By the way, do you need help with this pages anytime soon? WesleyDodds (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't Stop Believin' is still the first article I would love to get to FA, esp. with its huge recent popularity (& since I insisted it be correct, without the "g" at the end). I've sent 2 e-mails to Allmusic about their incorrect spelling of the song title in their article body, but correct spelling elsewhere on the site; I've had no response. Take a look at DSB' on WP if you have time and let me know what you think. Thanks, Wesley... Doc9871 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've e-mailed Allmusic before to fix some stuff but they've never implemented it. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your user page is on my watchlist because I posted a message to you before. I notice you added this notice on your page:

I reported myself as a suspected sock puppet of myself to see if I turned up on the list of Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. Sure enough, I'm on the considerably massive list. The ease with which one can level accusations of "sockpuppetry" needs to be seriously re-examined...

That happens because the template automatically adds you to the list. Really, what would be the point of adding that template, if it didn't show up somewhere so that someone could look at it? You will remain on the list until you or someone else removes the template from your page. This isn't a good test to see if anyone noticed, because someone may have seen it, figured out you were doing a test, and left it as is. In fact, I noticed it when you tagged yourself, and thought it might be an experiment. As for the "ease" at which anyone can make an accusation, what would be the benefit of making it difficult or impossible to make an accusation? We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and anyone can report suspected hanky panky too. It's just user pages, not articles, and it's hardly a defamation of character. So you can post anything you like here, if you're bored and have nothing better to do, which as you can see describes me right now. :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Zowie!! Thanks for commenting; I saw one editor accused of being three(!) separate sock puppets; and I went "overboard". I'm not "for" making it "impossible" to accuse these insidious animators of footwear, but I truly feel for the "investigators of sockpuppetry", who are overburdened with frivolous accusations (like mine). I choose to remain on the list of suspected sock puppets for now; it only reaffirms my good feelings about puppets in general.

"There's no Messiah here! There's a mess alright, but no Messiah!" Doc9871 (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw that triple template too! I also saw that the person who made it, get hit with a counter-accusation of being a sock of one of the same people in his accusation. (That template was posted by an anon IP, but even so, it could be true, because the person who made the 3 accusations is a "newbie" who knows too much to be a newbie. I'm sure it's all very intriguing... to someone who cares!) :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with this edit, but in general, you aren't supposed to edit talk page entries by other editors. Another editor might object, so it's probably best to let bad grammar/spelling stand on talk pages. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Heh... sorry 'bout that. You're absolutely right; the grammar teacher in me just took over for a wild moment. Won't happen again :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I am anticipating the discussion has now died. The two supporters have studiously avoided responding to my last post, when I pointed out, quite clearly one specific issue. I must admit I was having a little fun, instead of giving all the reasons why it doesn't work in one go, I was going to roll them out one by one. OTOH these kind of arguments are precisely the reason I avoided the music parts of WP for so long. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• You argue very well, and certainly should not avoid the music articles, which tend to be the most in need of "correction". I hope you are right about this particular discussion dying, but methinks it may have a last gasp or two before... mercifully... it will die... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You were right, it has raised it's ugly head as a second proposal. Hopefully I have kicked it to death with my clown boots. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The squeaky clown shoes, right, not just the oversized variety? The second proposal is not as perversely dangerous as the first, but it could (hah!) pave the way for further nightmares, and is unnecessary at best. Neither prop will get to a vote, and let's hope we've encouraged the supporters to concentrate on "better" things. If this discussion persists, I may have to bring out the "big guns" - and this would fare poorly for the opposition, by ending it, and quickly. Shhh! I've said too much already... the walls have ears... Doc9871 (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the second proposal is a step towards the first proposal, a little more thought and if the proposers had nominated in reverse order they might have cleared the board. Why does fandom rhyme with random? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's next? Slapping a {rfctag|prop} tag on it to get more consensus before closing the discussion as "No consensus" or "Failed"? Pointing the opposition to the "Points important in reaching consensus" on the WP:Policies and Guidelines page - all the points this prop does NOT meet? Asking Mediation Cabal for advice? Of just debate and debate and debate, getting absolutely nowhere? What do you think? I don't know about you, but this is getting downright annoying and pathetic at this point... Doc9871 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a 10-point plan. as per CfD Country songs by songwriter. I expected lots of blood over that one, but it went through easy-peasy. A little silence from me in the meanwhile will not go amiss. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy molé! Now THAT was a 13-step clown-boot "stomp" waltz. Very well-written and referenced! This may quiet things down long enough for it to fail through lack of consensus. Howeeeever... I hate to tell you this, but I'm thinking of "flopping" over to the "Support" side now, because you didn't really convince me enough... yet... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What inspired me into action was the guy who claimed to have studied UK copyright law, if he had, he would have known he did not need to tell us he studied "UK copyright law." Speaking of feet, he shot himself there! Sorry to hear you might change sides, in which case I might have to review my own situation. And there was me thinking I might just have managed a knockout punch. How about an proposal regarding song genres as per my CfD above? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as genres go, I'm not a fan of trying to meticulously categorize bands into "genres" that the bands themselves would laugh at (Jethro Tull winning 1989 Grammy Award for Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance Vocal or Instrumental)? Aren't they "art rock"? Maybe "Medieval-sounding Progressive Art Rock" should be a "genre". Sure, I organize my iTunes songs by these lame genre tags, for convenience. But, really, just what the hell is Industrial music??! Music to be played to factory workers? And I stay away from The Beatles skirmishes concerning whether or not an album of theirs falls into the "psychedelic", "baroque pop", etc. genre. Too much headache, with constant reverts.

As for the current question concerning listing, e.g., Fever (1956 song) as Fever (Madonna song)... a bit complicated. I certainly support the proposed proposal, and would love to smash the Madonna page to pieces. And... oh, crap. A certain member of the opposition is digging up that old corpse again... Respond to this latest affront, and I'll get back to you... Doc9871 (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read my CfD for "country songs by songwriter" which stated that genres are about arrangement, not songwriters, as a song can be done in many different styles, therefore the category had to go and it did. As far as I am concerned the wider genres are OK, rock, classical, latin, etc, but the rest are merely marketing tools to explain why this or that performer are different. Maybe we can get Wesley to sort it out, I am not going there...

I agree regarding disambig, which is why I said I was happy to change my mind, I don't actually like by date, but I can't think of a better alternative. Whatever is decided it will have to be compromise. Pls go over and support the merge proposition for Fever... I have responded to Wesley, he's obviously not paying any attention so he and go and argue with himself. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

They can go and argue amongst themselves, they are patently not paying attention to anything written that does not support their POV. It's not going to go through - there are precedences which can be used. Concensus cannot be reached. I'm gonna sit it out until armistice day, barring a minor edit on one of my posts. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Postscript. Remember countries have gone to war over "wee tunes of maize construction" --Richhoncho (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Right You are correct that R.E.M. credit themselves as (Berry/)Buck/Mills/Stipe, but this says to use their proper names. However they credit themselves is secondary to how Wikipedia chooses to style or present that information. Please respond on my talk if you need me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What he said. The practice in tracklisting sections is to write out the songwriters' proper names, with Wikilinks. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Song Infoboxes should list official credits, or is my (Don't Go Back To) Rockville edit gonna get chopped, too? Doc9871 (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's best and most logical to link to the people, which is why I hate the Lennon/McCartney link in Beatles infoboxes, because really it should link to John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Smiths songs don't link to "Morrissey/Marr", after all. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've linked to the individual "people" on R.E.M singles; but instead of "Bill Berry/Peter Buck/Mike Mills/Michael Stipe", it's Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe. Or, Berry, Buck, Mills, Stipe. Or Berry Buck Mills Stipe. Or Buck, Mills, Stipe. The official way the band credited it; and it depends on the album in this particular band's case. You have got to see by these examples that the artist chooses how their writing credit is listed, even within the same band, with the same members. John and Paul did the same thing by incorporating Lennon/McCartney as a songwriting entity, and it's not for us layman WP editors to comment that, for instance, "Yesterday" was probably written in entirety by McCartney. Who doesn't know that Lennon wrote not a bit of that particular song? Yet, it will always (and must always) be listed as a Lennon/McCartney composition, and we can do nothing about it. That's how songwriting credits work, and I'm not about to second-guess how Paul and John hashed it out.

If "Morrissey/Marr" were one-one millionth as influential a songwriting partnership as Lennon/McCartney, perhaps they would have a special place. Unfortunately for them, they couldn't hold Ringo's jockstrap on their best day. Sorry - that's just the way it is... Doc9871 (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty well-established that "Yesterday" is a solo McCartney composition. Just sayin'. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If by "established" you mean he's the only one who sings on it, references can be found to back up the fact he wrote it alone, and everyone on earth intrinsically just knows it's a McCartney song - you are correct, sir. For No One is similar in this respect, obviously. But, if by "established' you mean that it can be credited to Paul McCartney alone and not to Lennon/McCartney, (buzzer sound) you are incorrect, good sir. Again, John and Paul wanted their songs to be ambiguously credited to the pair, and they set up that arrangement long ago. Only towards the end of The Beatles and after was there "fussing and fighting" about it, mostly on Paul's part in later years. WP cannot, in good conscience, credit Lennon alone for (e.g.) Across the Universe, or Paul alone for (e.g.) I Will in the Infoboxes. Because despite what we all know about who really wrote what, in their baffling wisdom, Paul and John credited all their joint compositions during The Beatles' immaculate reign as "Lennon/McCartney" (well, "McCartney/Lennon" in the very beginning). So, yes, it's "established" that Paul wrote "Yesterday" (references should be cited in the body), and no, we can't rightly credit him alone for the song, because of his prior arrangement with John. Weird, huh? Cheers...  :> Doc9871 (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about what the songwriting credit should be. I mean there's plenty of sources where Paul says he wrote it alone. And I'm pretty sure John confirmed it, too. That's a simple verifiable detail. That's where Wikipedia's verifiability policy comes into play. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I often remove the article subject's name from captions. It isn't at all necessary (which may be what I said). As for the retirement. I still monitor some of the articles on my watchlist, mostly because the ones I watch are prime targets for vandalism, or to tidy something up. Other than that, I've quit actively working on the articles outside of that. You might have noticed the health issues notice and that is why I'm not working actively on the articles - it's just too stressful right now. I've also been very active in WP:CRIME as a project and by being "retired", it keeps me from getting questions or comments from that project. I'm currently busily working on a couple actor articles to soon nominate them for good article status. I find that relaxing. In any case, I hope I soon feel more like tackling crime articles besides watching for vandals. How's that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Again, like I said, I meant no offense, and I hope you recover from your illness. I actually didn't see the medical post at the top of your page before I sent my message, and I truly didn't mean to upset you. Also as I said, you are clearly a very accomplished and well-respected editor, which is why I made the "Retirement" query. Do not retire! You are not retired from making good edits, wherever they may be... Doc9871 (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. I appreciate your kind words and sentiments. I haven't completely retired, I'm just taking a "little breather" from active crime article work. A mini-vacation, if you will. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:BLeadonModern.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 09:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree profoundly, so I'm raising it elsewhere. David T Tokyo (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've raised it with an administrator I've occasionally discussed issues with. His initial view is that he "tends towards rejecting any claimed "encyclopedic purpose", despite its availability. Classic WP:UNDUE, I think." Would you care to argue the case for keeping it there on the page? If so, you can do so at RodHullandemu. Thanks David T Tokyo (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind changing the caption to say he was acquitted, but it makes it cumbersome, spilling down into the next section. It's no secret that Jimi liked his drugs, and this was a drug arrest that was a pretty big deal at the time (I mean, he did go to trial for it and all, and he was a famous U.S. citizen arrested in a foreign country). It's not emblazoned across the top of the article with the caption, "Criminal!!!" on it, but merely a thumbnail to the side of the section that mentions the arrest (which I did not write). Of course it is historically irreplaceable by WP criteria, and I feel there is no UNDUE weight in its inclusion in the article. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Doc, I've replied and Rod's replied again - you might want to do the same. Let's see if we can come a decision on this. Thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I responded as well. I've been through this all before, and here's how it goes: nothing I say is going to convince either of you of anything, and vice-versa. We bicker until someone ups the ante (which I invited you to do). A proposal is created. You get your friends to vote, and I get mine. Consensus is not reached. Proposal is eventually closed through lack of consensus or inactivity (and lack of consensus). Do we really need to go through all that? Doc9871 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talkpage. I have responded on the article's talkpage, where the whole discussion should be for the wider consumption of WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

More I think about it, I don't like the whole section. Howabout moving the drug related parts up to "drug use" and with references? The rest can be deleted as unreferenced. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I obviously agree the section should be referenced, and well. I like how it fits into the timeline of the article, but I'm not married to that idea either. My main concern is preserving this photo as one of the very limited free images of this iconic figure that are available out there (and illustrating an important event in his life). Thanks again for your voice... Doc9871 (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen that you'd uploaded a picture of Gram – good work! Gram does indeed rock. As far as adding further images, I'm no expert but I think that the use of copyrighted images on Wikipedia is generally frowned upon. I don't know whether you're familiar with it but there's some good info on Wikipedia image policy on WP:IUP. Of course, one picture, to show the subject for encyclopedic purposes, like you've done, is probably acceptable but I think it'll be hard to justify adding other copyrighted images to the article. As far as non- copyrighted, public domain images relating to Parsons go, I know that Wikipedia Commons (found here) has some shots of the hotel room where he died. Maybe there's some other suitable, GP related images to be found there too.

Sometimes you have to use a little imagination; I've recently been heavily involved in getting the Sweetheart of the Rodeo article up to WP:GA status and I was a bit stuck for images. I found a free pic of Roger McGuinn on Wikipedia Commons but I also wanted something directly connected with The Byrds during the Sweetheart period. After some thinking and searching I finally managed to find a picture of Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, which is where the Grand Ole Opry was held at the time when The Byrds played on the show. As I say, sometimes you just have to think outside the box a little bit where images are concerned. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Always think outside the box - otherwise we'd have a fan-site here (which so many perpetuate... I just wanna wrap their heads around a pole and... oh, sorry. I was "thinking out loud".) I've added both of Morrison's mug shots to The Doors page, and recently had a very mild and civil argument with an editor about keeping my Jimi Hendrix mug photo in the article. Mug shots are just one source of historical data, as are "promotional material" images. They are free, historically irreplaceable, and citable. I like your creative way of seeing this, and certainly laud your excellent contributions to the Country rock portion of WP. I brought Randy Meisner from "Start" class to "C" class (better than Frey even has currently), and always keep my eye out for artists from this era. Good work... Doc9871 (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for backing me up in replying to JBsupreme. You said you wouldn't come back to the discussion, but now I've given him a long explanation of how he should go about preparing to fix problems he finds, and suggested he use a sandbox to prepare an explanation of his first change and have us review it before he goes ahead. It's likely he'll find this task too daunting, but you may wish to keep an eye on it and see if he is seriously interested, and follows my suggestion. If so, I think he would welcome encouragement from you or me or anyone. I like to assume good faith against the odds, don't I? :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look out for him. I used to be quite an ornery, sarcastic and condescending editor at first (and sometimes I still am), but I generally quieted my tone and learned to be more of a "team-player", after both constructive advice and "self-evaluation". I prefer to assume good faith as well :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:BernardLeadon1.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. Skier Dude (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Philspector2009.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. ZooFari 03:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, feelings are not what guides the project. You can see here why it is a worthy redirect to keep. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Perhaps an exact reasoning under here, please? Should we recreate Parlaphone, so that people who don't know how to spell it continue to know not how to spell it? Or should we turn this page into what you see when you enter "parlaphone" (e.g.) as a search; "did you mean elektra records?" That is how it should be done, sir... Doc9871 (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Both reasons #2 and #5 apply here. Could you find the exact page that was deleted, because Parlaphone has never existed. I would like to ask the admin who deleted that page their reasoning, because misspelling redirects should be kept. There are over 9400 pages that are redirects from misspellings, and why else would {{R from misspelling}} exist? It also makes a difference that this page has existed for over 5 years. I admit that I am a new admin, but if you can find some guideline saying that this page should be deleted, I'll reconsider. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, 9400 pages redirected from misspellings is hardly a reason to justify their existence! They are misspellings. If the proper spelling were the only alternative, there would one less page to add to that sad statistic. You may be a new admin, but you are an admin, and I respect your authority. I can't cite a specific guideline at this time, but I like to "think outside the box" and let common sense prevail. Keeping Electra Records because some people misspell it is counterproductive to what educating WP readers is about, when educating them to the legally, historically accurate Elektra Records is so close to our reach... Doc9871 (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not justifying misspellings in general, I'm just trying to show that this is the way things are done, whether or not either of us agrees with it. I could understand your reasoning if the information was duplicated on both pages, but since it redirects, people can see the correct spelling at that time. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If the information was duplicated on both pages, it would truly be a travesty, as there is no "Electra Records" in the first place, and it shouldn't have a page. Do you not see the beauty of there being no "Parlaphone" to direct one to the correct Parlophone? There is no "Parlaphone", as there is no "Electra Records". It is 100% crystal clear to me... Doc9871 (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I would like to see which page you are referring to, as Parlaphone has never existed. And I'm sorry I can't do anything about the guidelines of the project. There are some I disagree with also. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally went through every page on WP that listed "Parlaphone" and corrected it to Parlophone. I don't know or really care if a "Parlaphone" page existed; now no search of "Parlaphone" on WP will bring you anywhere except "did you mean parlophone"?. This is what I started to do with Elektra Records, until you decided that the "Electra Records" page should remain. Reasons #2 and #5 that you cited do not adequately justify keeping this article, and research towards elimination of "Electra Records" continues. Thank you... Doc9871 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OIC. Well that's a completely different situation. If you are talking about fixing back links to the redirect page, then you should read this page. But I could understand wanting to correct those typos so that people are not misinformed. The 9 pages should not take long to fix. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the pages on the list you provided that could be fixed (couldn't find the incorrect "Electra" on Waddy Wachtel's page, for instance). I gotta go for now - we'll finish this issue later :> Doc9871 (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The three remaining pages are all linked as [[Electra Records|Elektra]]. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay... the rest of the pages (except for our two and the page of the bot that registered my first attempt at deletion) are all free from the erroneous "Electra Records". I've done the dog-faced grunt work, just like I did with "Parlaphone". Sorry I didn't tell you right off the bat how I got rid of that redirect; I thought you guys had a way of seeing that.

So, can we now just eliminate the redirect and the "Electra Records" "article", now that there is no page mentioning it? I eagerly await your reply... Doc9871 (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Knowing the policy, I can't do that, but if you feel like tagging the page again, I'll leave it to another administrator to decide, although their response should be the same. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I figured. Been a tough first week, I imagine. Don't want to ruffle too many feathers too soon, right?. I appreciate your help with the list of remaining faulty entries, and I'll obviously finish this elsewhere. Predicting what other admins "should" do is never a safe bet, btw. Consensus can always change, even among the "higher-ups". Good luck to you, and thanks again... Doc9871 (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(I was invited here by doc to comment) Hi again Doc! Gotta tell you I'm totally on the other "side" here. And thanks for being a user who questions assumptions (we need more) but existing policy is that we should have redirects from misspellings and I agree with the policy wholeheartedly. I do see your take on it. That users who are taken to a nonexistent title that says "did you mean X" may be more likely to realize they were trying to navigate to a misspelling. But there are fundamental underlying concerns addressed by having the redirect and really we're talking about two different realms when considering the navigation purposes served by redirects verses avoiding users misspelling links in articles.

A redirect is a navigation aid. When a user types "Electra Records" into the search field (or searches any external search engine for that title) and a redirect exists, that person ends up at the correct place and is never fooled into thinking we don't have an article for the subject. While the search results page does have the suggested correct article, a person may think that's some other topic than what they were looking for, if they notice it at all. A more ambiguous example may highlight why this is: hesperia and hespera are two different things. We see similar names that are two different things all the time so even if a user sees the "did you mean" section of the page, that doesn't necessarily mean they will learn there is an article and that the misspelling they searched for is incorrect. On that note, the chief function of that page you get to when a title does not exist is to inform users that they may create the nonexistent title—and they do, all the time. I guarantee you if I were to delete the redirect at cemetary to cemetery (one of the 100 most misspelled words in the English Language), we would have a "new", redundant article at the redirect name in days that would need to be deleted (and/or redirected).

A second navigation reason militates toward having the redirect far more strongly. If and when a link is made in an article pointing at the misspelled Electra Records, and no redirect exists, it will be a red link and red links are our way of saying to people "there is no article on this topic, why not create it!" Unlike when you search for a nonexistent title, when you click on a red link, you do not get any suggestion of another article (no "did you mean Parlophone"; click Parlaphone to see). So every time a user makes a red link to Electra Records, they would be leaving behind an invitation to create a duplicative article at that title. Fixing the actual misspellings appearing in articles is a great and useful activity, but it is a separate activity from the navigation purposes addressed by redirects. Really if we follow your logic, it addresses all redirects from misspellings. There's nothing different about Electra Records or Persaphone from any other misspelling. If we deleted all these redirects we would see thousands of articles being created at the misspelled names, which is exactly what we want to avoid.

On a balancing test, the harm from users thinking no article topic exists and creating it, and all the users who are simply searching for a topic here or through an external search engine to read who won't reach their intended target if no redirect exists, far outweighs the perceived benefits of not having the redirect to better inform users it is a misspelling. So Electra Records should exist as a redirect (and so should Parlaphone). By the way, there are hundreds of thousands of redirects from misspellings. Very few of them actually are tagged with {{R from misspelling}}. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that every single day approximately 10 people attempt to reach Elektra Records by searching for Electra Records (over 3,000 people per year) and might not find the article if the redirect did not exist. See here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked the right one for sage advice again, it seems :> I truly appreciate the time and effort you out into your responses (for all that ask your advice); you brought up many excellent points that I hadn't even considered. I hope I didn't get too "snippy" with MrKIA11 - I'm still learning to tame my "gut reaction" to edit reverts. I realize my only course is to stick to dutifully "culling" misspellings on topics I choose to edit from articles, rather than attempt to delete the redirect page; it makes a lot more sense now. I really do appreciate the greater protection of the redirect policy, and now, I only better understand it (but I still truly hope no one creates a Parlaphone page... I really do...) Many thanks again, sir! :> Doc9871 (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I must say that was quite an explanation from Fuhghettaboutit; even I learned some things. But no problem, no offense taken. I've also had the opposite opinion of Wikipedia guidelines before, and sometimes it's not until someone is able to use the right words to convey the reasons behind the policy that you can understand and/or accept it. I'm glad that the issue has been resolved. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank both of you! I will always be a bold editor, and I assume consensus until I'm told otherwise. When I am told otherwise, I learn exponentially from that experience, and attempt to teach others the same down the line. Both of you politely and very patiently pointed out my mistake, and I am much appreciative of this. And Fuhghettaboutit? You are one of the best admins on WP, and I ask you for advice before any other. Gentlemen, thanks again, and Peace... Doc9871 (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Doc. Just to let you know, I have moved this here. Thanks for reverting the unsourced change. Rivertorch (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the original book reference is the one to use. I tend to go with the first printing edition. I've watched this article for a long time and I jump in when I don't agree with what I see, such as the reference section being gone. It does need inline citations, if even to the book. Cheers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Cool! I don't have the book, but somebody who does will hopefully add some footnotes. Then the book can be moved into "References", the citations under "Notes" or "Footnotes", and "Further Reading" be reserved for books not cited in the article. I'll fix the book info on Pamela's page, and thanks for getting back to me :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Gacy trivia: I hate those sections too and have argued for their decrease and omission on several articles. WP:CRIME has taken exception to them, and especially when they list every episode of every mention on The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park. It just doesn't compute! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehee... I wiped out the "Trivia" list on The Doors page in one fell swoop, expecting a ton of grief. Happily, not one peep. "Don't Fear the Reaper"? No, DO fear the reaper ;> Doc9871 (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck on arguing for the inclusion of that image, the most recent mug shot. Shortly after it was released to the public, I added it and it was very soon afterwords reverted for some dumb-assed reason which apparently survived "consensus" of the several people that "own" the article. I predict that only the holiday season has allowed it to continue to exist in the article, and it will be removed before the new year. Proxy User (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I will argue most fiercely if it is removed, as it's just as valid as any other mug shot on WP, and is historically irreplaceable. Hopefully if its removed and I begin a monstrous debate, you'll join in on the good side... :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason it was deleted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I just heard the theme to Dragnet... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Stone Canyon Band.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

to you. How insane has that whole thing become?? Sheesh. Thanks for your observations. I would suggest you not post to that page in case someone would say you are me! Or to paraphrase The Wizard of Oz, "That's me all over the place!" Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC) or as Rossrs would say MisterBeyondMyWildBettySoupLoganhartlivie (I'm feeling a little schizo today!)

"Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm schizophrenic, and so am I." I know how it is...

I'm about to put a waaayy better picture of Morrison on the Jim Morrison page - check it out; just getting it ready :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The "no fly" list is an indef block. That usually requires pretty egregious activity with no valid edits; he seems to occasionally have valid edits. If he continues his behavior, though, indef is right around the corner. --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I don't usually comment on Userpages I have on my watchlist, but Fredy.00's goal at the end seemed to be just the trashing of all Americans, really just devolving into a sad, spiteful mess. I saw too that he has valid edits - it's a shame when potentially good editors become "unhinged". Thanks again for the reply and clarification, and I assure you I'll be watching Fredy if not just for laughs :> Doc9871 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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, 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. Skier Dude (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there is a new discussion going on to see if there is a consensus one way or the other about the video or the Ann Rule book on the judge’s comments. This note is to let you know about this discussion so that if you wish you can voice your opinions. It’s time to put this dispute to rest so hopefully a real consensus will show up for one or the other of these references. If not interested, please feel free to just ignore. I am notifying every editor that I see on the talk page who has been in the recent discussions. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have commented to you at my talk page about the Ted Bundy article. You and SkagitriverQueen say there is a documentary that is to be used for the judge's comments. The dif shown at the article doesn't show the judges words as far as I can find. The youtube.com video is not allowed as a source because of copyright problems so we need the actual documentary that you and Skagit are saying is there. I'd love the actual transcripts but... Would you please give the link to this documentary at the article talk page by the poll suggesting it to be used or at my talk page where I will add it. Thanks and happy New Year. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thedoorssep1968.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. --ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doc,
is there a rationale why we need the above unfree file in addition to File:The Doors band members.jpg?
Amalthea 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel that all four reasons I listed for non-free fair-use rationale qualify, especially as one of the band members is deceased. The image was taken in 1968, and the other was in 1967. This is like only having an early picture of The Beatles, and nothing from the rest of their career, as they grew older and changed "styles". The initial image (File:The Doors band members.jpg) isn't "public domain" - but I don't think that it should be scrapped, either. I don't know of any truly free images of The Doors - maybe we shouldn't have any pictures at all... Doc9871 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, if there's no free picture of the four then I certainly think a case can be made of having one with a claim of fair use, and we've had the one since early 2007, apparently. If we want both one from 67 and 68 though we need to make a better case for it, otherwise we violate the "minimal usage" criterion. I don't know much about The Doors, but from a glance I don't see the additional encyclopedic value from the second picture, and it seems to be missing the critical commentary required. What does it show that the existing one didn't?
Cheers, Amalthea 02:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I originally inserted this image because there were more images of Jim Morrison than the four members together (and I'm not complaining about that, as this was a very noteworthy band, and I'm a big fan of the ol' "A picture says a thousand words" philosophy). Again, this image was taken at a later time in their brief career than the other image, and we don't have free images from that period that I know of. Would a picture of the four of them performing together be less objectionable? I've also been working on a photo of Morrison passed out onstage, with all four members in the picture... Doc9871 (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, a passed-out Morrision sounds interesting, if there's a story behind it that should work. Them performing together would be better as well, I'd say, but then again, I personally interpret the NFCC less strictly than what's usually found as consensus opinion, so I'm typically quicker to accept a non-free image. Hmm, there are a couple of "incidents" mentioned in the article, I'd imagine that the understanding of one of them might be enhanced by an additional picture, if there's a suitable one. Amalthea 12:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thedoorssep1968.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. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle placed it at PUF, which wasn't where I intended it to go. You'd make a better case for the image by placing it near critical commentary mentioning the change of the members appearances. However, looking closely at both images, the only difference is that in 67 they are shaved and in 68 they're all growing 'staches. I don't believe its unique enough to pass WP:NFCC. If you can find something unique, I don't see any objections being raised. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

3 (a) of the WP:NFCC policy is the only foggy complaint I can see there - ALL other criteria seems to be easily met. Don't understand why the deletion tag was slapped on so quickly after the Possibly unfree file tag - by the same non-admin editor, within a 10-hour period, with no input on the talk page from said editor until after getting "tag-happy". Why did you not comment before you added the deletion tag?! Doc9871 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, even if there's a relatively large time between the two pictures, there's essentially not much difference between them. And unfortunately, one failed criterion is all that it takes. Regarding the tags, as Floydian said, the first one was a mistake and can be ignored. I do agree though that it would have been better to try and settle this here, in particular since there was already a discussion ongoing. Amalthea 12:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm... hi again? How are you answering two separate sections here at "exactly" 12:36 on January 4, 2010, when both or your responses were made (indeed simultaneously) actually many hours later? Are you fading in and out of the discussion? Now I am truly confused... Doc9871 (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, nothing mysterious, I merely wrote two answers with one edit. And your clock must be off, it is now pretty much exactly one hour later, 13:37 UTC, everything seems to be correct to me? Amalthea 13:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the shadows are getting long; I might be a little paranoid at this point. I've had quite a full day of arguing on this and several other topics - time for a break. I appreciate the feedback, and we'll see what fun awaits us in 12 hours or so. G'nite! Doc9871 (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have expected shadows growing shorter again if you're "hailing from NYC", but since that city allegedly never sleeps I guess that's a matter of interpretation. Anywho, have a good night, and see you around. :) Amalthea 13:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.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. ÷seresin 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Let's see... Am I "interested in it not being deleted"? I uploaded it to WP... Did I do this strictly for laughs? No, as I recall, I did this for a reason. But... why? Doc9871 (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I did. if you'll drop by Talk:Black Dahlia#Lynda LaPlante novel and ITV program based on Lynda LaPLante novel and comment for me. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure - just give me a few, as I want to fully acquaint myself with the discussion (SRQ again? Hehee) Doc9871 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope I did okay... Doc9871 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cripes! What a whiner she is! Definitely should have a "Does Not Play Well With Others" bumper sticker... Doc9871 (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you resorting to childish taunts? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as a taunt - I just thought SkagitRiverQueen was more cumbersome to type. I'm agreeing with you on the point I typed this on - why would I be taunting you? I often give nicknames to editors I communicate with on pages; I guess I won't use that for you, then! No offense meant, seriously... Doc9871 (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Try SRQ. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ it is :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[3] My comment was going to be "When did Morrison suggest this to him? When he visited him in Oregon??" Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Right? "Started wearing simlar clothes, speaking like a poet and using simlar entrance music to The Doors". Definitely should be in Jim's article! My word... Doc9871 (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I need to get to bed now, but I'll come back to this tomorrow. John and I worked a very long time to work the article up to where it was at the first of December or so. He's really an earnest editor and it distresses me to see the two of you spatting. My issue is with what Zeus and someone else has done to the article. John's working overtime trying to keep up with it. I shouldn't have gotten miffed and stopped watching it or all of this mess that currently exists wouldn't have happened. Take my comments with good faith and the best interests of the article. Night! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I only "spat" briefly with any other editor, then decide where to go from there. I may agree with an editor completely on one issue, and then disagree with that same editor ferociously on another; it's truly the nature of the beast. There's no "mess", and certainly no misunderstandings on good faith intentions - WP is the mistress we all serve, and we must answer for our edits there. I have no problem with John, this article, or you. We're all here to improve WP, and everything we say is recorded for posterity - so "bad faith" editors always make their own beds. Good night to both of you, and please: no hard feelings, okay? Nothing is ever written in stone here... :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. No hard feelings on anything. I think the lead that we've just put back is better. And not such a mishmash. Sleep well. Hopefully John will see we've done this and breathe a sigh of relief. I hope. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks a lot better. Tell him to talk to me; I already told him he was doing a good job with the copyediting. Nothing will ever fully prevent the hairs on my WikiOgre back from standing up straight from time to time, but I'm getting better; and it's always a team effort. Sweet dreams :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings. In a comment I posted at editor Wildhartlivie's talk page a little while ago, I said I had begun to sense that you thought the copy-edit tag was justified largely by the intro mishmash — which, as you apparently did not know, had been wrought by the same editor who'd posted the copy-edit tag. As you've seen, I've begun eliminating the many awkward sentences that have been in the article a long time. In most cases, they simply try to communicate too much — and can be remedied simply by being split into two or more sentences. Until they're gone, the copy-edit tag will be justified, in a way; but as soon as I've eliminated the remainder of them, I'll announce on the talk page that I plan to remove the tag. My elimination of them has so far taken the form of two edit series, one that began just after 00:02, 23 December 2009 and another that began at 04:10, 6 January 2010 (i.e., last night). With luck, I'll be able to take care of the rest in a single, final series.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct about the both "mishmash" intro, and the fact I didn't know that he who wrote it also tagged the article. Good work on the article, John, and I doubt you'll see objections on removing the tag when you're done. Cheers! Doc9871 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography! We have lots of articles under the project and much work to be done. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or ask at WT:CRIME. Thanks for joining! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

NOS PERITURI MORTEM SALUTAMUS (sp?) Doc9871 (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Who's dying?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"WE WHO ABOUT TO DIE SALUTE YOU" - it's what the gladiators used to say to the emperor before combat :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bear huntin' season is in the air!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it is... Doc9871 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have listed the following files which you have uploaded for deletion:

• File:AllEagles@Halloffame.jpg
• File:Jimlaughingw-dogs.jpg
• File:Young Jim.jpg
• File:Gram Parsons At Altamont.jpg
• File:Jim and Pamela1.jpg
• File:BernardLeadon1.jpg
• File:BigHeadShot wht2.jpg
• File:RMeisner2005-01.jpg

The discussions are all here. ÷seresin 04:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda noticed that. If you weren't an admin, your actions would almost certainly constitute WP:HOUND. Do you often single out editors as you did me? I hope you don't expect me to "freak out" and launch into a tirade, 'cause it's not going to happen. Thanks for drastically improving WP, all in one fell swoop! Doc9871 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I'm not exempt from WP:HOUND because I'm an admin. I do nominate batches of images uploaded by particular users, because people who upload invalid images tend to upload lots of them. And it is best that you don't freak out and launch into a tirade, because such outbursts are unseemly. ÷seresin 04:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why I tagged the images with what I thought were appropriate tags for fair-use. They haven't been contested until you decided to "sweep up" my contributions. These images were not uploaded at one sitting, as you ripping through them in one sitting was. I never claimed them as my own, with "All Rights Reserved", and I tagged each and every one. Maybe I didn't get every tag just right, but your response was what it was. Doc9871 (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, first I responded to you on my talk page, so take a peek when you get time, I won't bore you with it again. :) If you wouldn't mind would you watch the Aileen Wuornos article for an anon IP that is saying that Wuornos' was wrongfully found guilty and wrongfully executed, of course with other edits along these lines. I've reported it to User:Lar who is an administrator who help with WP:BLP issues. Actually I've learnt quite a bit from this editor about BLP's and their problems so when I do my vandal patrolling I try in my small way to help get rid of the trash people enjoy putting into the articles. I am at 2 reverts already, though I can continue to revert until I die for a violation like this, but I don't have the energy for the boring game this editor is playing. I'm married, if I want to run in circles chasing my own tail I can have it in RL. :) Anyways, until Lar's comes online and either blocks and/or protect the article I'd love to be able to keep the article clean of at least this nonsense. Living in FL this serial killer was a little too close for comfort. With Ted Bundy I was too young to really notice but with her we were careful and glad when she got caught. Thanks, let me know if any other photos like the other one I voted to keep shows up. I didn't keep them on my watchlist so if there is something that I might be interested in just ping me the link and I'll take a peek. I really do love that other picture. I couldn't keep my fingers from responding! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I took it to ANI here. The editor has reverted now at least 4 times so it was time to get it to stop. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake - I was intending to revert the unsourced addition. I didn't spot that you'd already provided a source. Mea culpa, and thanks for the note! Orpheus (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for the response, Orpheus. Cheers! Doc9871 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, Doc! There is a category which is being discussed for deletion which I see great use in. It is: Category:Musicians who have served in the military. I wonder if you would check it out, and offer your opinion, either way, "Keep" or "Delete", here. (Hope this isn't a bother. Cheers!)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just a guy trying to get some edits done. Yes, I used to edit under an IP address before I took on a name. But I don't have the time to discuss about keeping those paras; if you're sure they have merit, fine, they stay. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not worried about my edits staying, believe me. I'm onto you, and I have a strong suspicion of who you are... but that will all come out in the wash, won't it?. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi I saw your question over at GTBaccus. Go to my talk page and cut and paste the bot to yours. Then change my name to yours. Then go to the days and change that to your preferences. A friend helped me set up mine. After you get it set up it takes a few days for it to go live so be patient. :) I have no problems if you take something from mine. I share! Most of what I have set up on my user page was by a friend who wanted to practice the coding used at the project so I told him he could use my long user page! :) See it helped us both!

I am not going to enter the Charles Manson page right now. As long as uncivil behavior is being thrown around like it has been I think I will leave it. The stress levels at that page is just too much for me. John is trying to restore things their but he seems to be taking a lot of heat for it. I don't know how to help though. I won't go somewhere to do battle and I think that's what it's like right now. Oh, you can do the bot there too if you want. There shouldn't be a problem. Just put the name of the article's talk page in instead of your name (or mine.) It took me a couple of tries to get my name in properly. I just kept working it. I was told later that I had to wait a few days for it to start working. I hope I am helping in all of this babbling I am doing. Have a good one doc, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Didn't proof so sorry for errors.

Thanks, Crohnie! I set it up, and hopefully it will work now. I agree with the situation at Manson; it's too much for me to bother with ATM. Deeply entrenched, arguing minutiae of grammar - it's not for me. I've been working on other pages (like Peter Lawford and Aldrich Ames), plus doing my usual rounds, and Crazy Charlie has been getting plenty of attention. My reason for being there was that I put up the newer mugshot of him at 74. Hopefully it will get settled somehow. Thanks again :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

PS - It comes as no surprise that the Eagles at the Hall Of Fame image was deleted. When you've got the same group of admins nominating, voting for, and closing the deletion arguments, what chance has one got? Seems to me like a very lousy situation there. This image deletion group is my least favorite of any "gang" I've encountered, and the policies governing non-free images where no others are available are, IMHO, a joke - esp. NFCC #8. Get ready for Jim & Pam's image to go, too... Doc9871 (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

hey, can you explain what the wikipedia is when you forbid people to write?My aim is to point out that it is "good and kind type of superpower,"

I, a man from the Czech Republic, post-communist country does not like to see if the history interpreted unilaterally, and in order to become a meliorate, and the other completely discredit.

To you in the U.S. is raising fanatically that do not even think that your country stinks?

Indeed, just enough so you start heiling as nazist, and you both Germany in 1939.

Fanatics are already on enough. --Fredy.00 (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Then not understand why you are not best friends with the most painful of dictatorships, such as in North Korea

indeed, he is not surprised that that your fascist state was repeatedly elected několirktá as the biggest problem in the path to world peace

actually, you stupid, patriotic, manipulative bastards should kill, burn, your entire floor level to the ground and even sprinkle with salt ... or one day destroy the entire world ...

--Fredy.00 (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip; I'll do just that... Doc9871 (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you clown - if you are no matter what I say, do not be surprised that the world hates you pula.

One of you will learn in history just as now learn about Nazi Germany - an arrogant superpower, having been responsible for hundreds of thousands of lives. --Fredy.00 (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, they will! Doc9871 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dead than Fred? Ho Hum. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Fredy needs a soapbox for his fierce and unintelligible rhetoric, but I doubt WP is the place. Goofy little guy... Doc9871 (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to give it an in-depth look in a few days. In the meantime, you shoud remove all the album covers from the article. They aren't justified under fair use. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response! The serious lack of inline citations is more troubling to me than the usage of the pre-existing (as far as WP is concerned) LP images in the article (a minor issue). Images are one thing, but this article has zero chance of getting better without excellent citation and prose work. We'll get to that in a few days, then! Doc9871 (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You still need to remove the album images, because images that don't adhere to fair use guidelines is a major issue. How many Doors books do you have access to? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So do you have any access to any print sources (ie. books, magazine articles)? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned the ref section and added the ISBN's. I wish I had one of those books here (I've got at least the Densmore book, but 5 states away). I'd love to reference this stuff, believe me; and that is what I think is needed the most, above all else... Doc9871 (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, when I begin to work on an article I like to do two things: clear out the obvious glaring problems in the article (because, hey, why not take care of that from the get-go), and gather up references. For references, I like to go through them all and then spent some time processing them, so as to better determine what to focus on in the article. I've come to learn that just because something may be of interest to you as a fan doesn't mean it warrants emphasis in the article, or even that it is true (several times in my research I've found tons of evidence to clear up assorted common misconceptions about music subjects). For the most reliable source, it looks like the best place to start is with the Ben Fong-Torres Doors book. Meanwhile, No One Gets out of Here Alive was the first definitive Doors biography, but there seems to be concerns about its research and its POV. Still, you should read it, for comprehensiveness' sake. The Densmore and Manzarek books can be useful, but be wary that you don't overly rely on them, as they are primary sources (the Fong-Torres books appears to have heavy input from the band, come to think of it). You might have to track down some magazine articles for a truly objective study of the band. Also of interest is the Classic Albums documentary DVD on the The Doors. Finally, figure out what your local libraries carry, and if they participate in interlibrary loan. This will make things much cheaper for you. You might be able to view large portions of the various print sources using Google Book Search, but access levels can vary wildly, so it's always best to have a hard copy to work from. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I read the "Sugary" ;> "No One Here Gets Out Alive" years ago, and certainly saw the POV problems w/that particular source ("Dionysus" blah blah blah). Fong-Torres is certainly the best and most respected source right now, esp. with the book that came out in 2006. I can slowly rewrite this article, quoting sources (as I have begun with the Eagles, which had the original band "lineup" meeting all wrong). This takes forever, but it is certainly worth it for posterity's sake...

"Back-sourcing" this already written article is the challenge now. The whole thing needs to be cited from beginning to end, which means a basic re-write. Sources are plentiful - the truly laborious work lies in the cited revision... Doc9871 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think the article starts off decent but then collapses into a mess, with lots of emphasis on recent events and unimportant details, as well as a horrendous page structure. This is where WP:BOLD becomes essential. Don't be afraid to completely rewrite or remove uncited material (which is most of the page). If you want to start sourcing right now, you do have one objective and reliable overarching source you can draw from readily available: the Allmusic Doors biography. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly concur that "most of the page" is uncited material; which is the source of my frustration to begin with. I knew I would get good advice from you on how to improve the article, as I knew that CuriousEric would be the only editor to respond to any recent changes made. Herein lies the problem: only a scant few are even starting to actually do the most important "dirty" work, which is copy-editing this article extensively. As I said, I can do it slowly, but my real-life obligations don't afford me the kind of attention I'd like to devote to this article (which I feel is extremely important on a music basis). How can I get copy editors knowledgeable on the subject who are truly interested in improving The Doors involved? I'll do all I can, but I can't do it alone, and I know there are plenty of others out there who have the desire to see this article improve drastically. Can you help me find a forum for this very important "classic rock" band (on par with Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc.)? I need actual, physical help with this article... Doc9871 (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that last plea for article help on The Doors. Of course I'm going to have to do it myself; it will just take time. Who the f^&% else is going to do it? Doc9871 (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the time you'll just have to take the reins. There are tons of editors who will do little fixes, but the key to any great article is a highly-motivated editor or two behind it. I figured your comment on my talk page was sarcasm, but it still left me initialy bewildered to an extent. Still, I stuck with WP:AGF, which is always handy in case misunderstandings arise. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I respected you the first time I argued with you, and you went through my edits on Lennon/McCartney and forced me to reference those statements (& I learned how to better cite sources as a result). I only learn from those who have something to teach me :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to bed now, but I'll see what I can do tomorrow to help you out. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Wesley; I appreciate your help, believe me, and I don't ask many because most people are idiots! Happy new year, Wes... Doc9871 (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So I checked out a collection of Mojo issues from the library today, and by happenstance one of them has a Doors article. I'll read it and use it as a source as soon as I can. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice! The article's definitely been getting some new editing activity, and I'd like to think it's at least indirectly because I harassed you the other day! I appreciate any help you can give, Wes; and you know this is just one of those "old school" classic rock bands that deserves top priority. Cheers! Doc9871 (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that before I found the Doors article I was really excited because one of the issues has a feature on Queen. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a recent technical mishap with my computer, which explains why I haven't been able to help in the last few days. I will try and add refs to the Doors article tomorrow, though. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Noprob. I've been recently fighting against the "image deletionist" admin group responsible for so much suffering due to vague, ill-defined NFCC arguments, so I haven't had much time to work on The Doors much myself recently. Thanks for getting back to me, and hopefully we'll get the article to a better place soon. Cheers! Doc9871 (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My library has The Doors Companion, a collection of articles on the band from various sources. I can probably check it out in a week or two. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think this was true but I don't have a ref. for it. :) Good call reverting though. If I had the energy I would look to see if I could find a ref. for it because I believe the comment was actually said back then. It happened occasionally here in FL for this call to turn of extral energy at home near the prison so that they had enough 'juice' back then. They used to have problems with not having enough power to finish the job so they asked the area to turn off power for three minutes at a certain time. Oh well, I guess this is just gruesome side stuff anyways.  :) How you doing Doc? Ignore the most part of this, I am burnt out and it's showing. ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Crohnie! You've been working hard on several fronts, but it's good to see you're still fighting for "Truth, Justice,..." ahh, you know the rest! :>

The Bundy passage was just too long and completely without citation. "Many radio stations.." is "weaselly", and, "...the number of people who complied is unknown,..." - yeah, I know. I'm sure that it's probably true (as is the "Burn, Bundy, Burn!" t-shirts being sold outside the prison before his execution). It must be decently referenced to stay, and this was certainly not. I've been working up a couple of "stub"-category early criminal biographies recently, so my Bundy filter is only on for recent changes. Good to hear from you! You always have been and still continue to be one of the most co-operative editors I've had the pleasure of encountering on WP! :> Doc9871 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about find a ref. for that. I was joking, well it did happen but you did good reverting the way it was written. Bundy was very hated up to the very end. I think it's too trivial though to pursue in my opinion. Yea, I understand a lot of t-shirts were sold too. The state should have made them, then maybe my taxes wouldn't be through the roof. :) Yea, it's exhausting but it gets to a point that even I have to say enough. I really was glad to hear what you say though. It doesn't hurt to hear good work occasionally. I enjoy working with you too, you don't always seem so serious all the time. If you want some help I'd love to be able to go somewhere that I am not followed to. Let me know if I can help. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Heck, I really am a "jack of all trades, master of none". I'll most likely take you up on your offer; as I learn by doing, and, like you, I'm happy to share. I've been most recently focusing on well-cited copyedits of a couple of biography articles, but I float all over the place. I'll see you soon :> Doc9871 (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find your email. You can email me at hughmercer@yahoo.com. Interested in hearing your thoughts on what to do about the Bundy murder kit photo. Vidor (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey doc, do you know anything about the deletion of the image of Bundy's tool kit? A bot just removed it. It was speedy deleted by an administrator but there was a discussion about it but I don't remember where. Do you remember the discusson, heck were you even part of the discussion? Thanks, long day, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, that was I, Vidor, who made the post above about emails. Forgot to sign. Anyway, if you want to talk about the Ted Bundy picture feel free to email me at hughmercer@yahoo.com. Vidor (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If the image needs help over a technicality you should ask User:Durova for help she is very good about helping with images like this. If you look at ANI there is a huge discussion going on about BLP's and mass deletion. I don't know if this would fall into what they are talking about but I think it would make the image returning much easier since we all showed that it is a historical image that helps the article. Has anyone asked the administrator who deleted it to return it? Doc, give your bot about a week before trying to change anything. It takes time for the bot to catch up with the new additions before working. It looks like you are set up properly so just some patience to wait for the bot to do its thing is all that is needed I think. I didn't set up my bot, someone else set it up and another set up the breaking down part. So I am ignorant about how to do the bot, which is why I told you to copy and paste from my page. :) I'm not doing too much. I was trying to edit at the Charles Manson article but everytime I tried to save I got a notice saying the project is having some kind of problem and I lost what I did. I give up for now. Sure could use some more eyes over there if either of you have the time. This article needs a lot of work right now, so help would be appreciated. Let me know if I can be of any help anywhere too. I am interested in expanding myself a bit but not exactly sure what will tickle my fancy lately. I'm looking for work that is friendly and not tedious. Is there such a place on here?  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Snap! I knew there was a purge of images recently instituted, and now that you pointed out its of BLP's, it makes even more sense. My Randy Meisner, Bernie Leadon, and Chuck Rainey images were smote with the same group of images of mine recently deleted. New Year's admin resolutions...

Manson... it's a potential quagmire right now, but at least it's civil, for the time being! I watch it always, but now we're talking about grammatical semantics, which can be hashed out over time (and is forever arguable and debatable unless "cemented within" a solid reference). I'd rather get some images on this page than anything; but I have to be very careful to tag any image I upload from now on, with "iron-clad" tags and rationale. Still working on that...

WHL will be back soon, huh?!! Can't wait - things will get exciting, I assume. Thanks for getting back to me, CrohnieGal! :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

She should return tomorrow night if all goes well. Hopefully though things will be quiet. I don't know all of it of course but I think things finally got worked out to everyone's satisfaction. It was a difficult situation that needed a gentle touch. The Manson article to me at least, is now suffering from undo weight. His birth has too much info. IMHO, his way into the world didn't cause the atrocities he did further in life. A lot of that needs to be removed and consolidated. Live birth certificate is mentioned too often as is 'no name'. Who cares? He was born out of wedlock, mom married, remarried and he got his name, end of discussion. ;) The article is too long and there has been a lot of complaints about that so what do you do as an editor, make it longer, nah don't think it's a good way to go but hey, I'd like to see it chopped up a bit with less weasle words and run on sentences. I am horrible about run on sentences myself so who am I to talk!--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what ANI or BMP means. I assume that if I leave a message at this Durova person's talk page that she will get back to me with advice on how to repost the photo with a license that will withstand challenge? Vidor (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely contact her and have her look at the history of the image. It was up for deletion because it was deemed "obsolete", but an admin ruled to keep it as irreplaceable. I think this deletion was a technical glitch, and whatever minor crediting issue required would be the only reason this image was deleted. It's irreplaceable, and we gotta get it back in... Doc9871 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes Vidor, she is good at knowing what is needed to allow images to stay. As Doc says, she'll look at the history of it. Also point her to the discussion that shows why the editors believe it is needed for the article. If you are more comfortable you may tell her I sent you her way. ANI is an administrator's board to resolve incedents that need attentions. Don't know BMP is meant to be. (?) --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"BMP" could mean "Buy More Pumpkins!" How can pumpkin farmers rely on only one time of year to sell their wares? What do they do for the rest of the year? Subliminal advertising? Mmm? Pumpkins... Doc9871 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually helped one year to sell pumpkins and Christmas trees, what a bad investiment and talk about back pain! :) Listen, on a serious note, yea right. Oh well, here goes, I asked the administrator who deleted what would be the easist way to get the image returned. I linked to the conversation about the deletion in case that was not seen. Maybe this will be the easiest way to address everything. We can at least hope. So keep an eye if you would to any responses. Soon I'm going to have to get to some heat on my back so I would appreciate the help. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The image is restored! Vidor you need to fix the sourcing he said. So, are we ready to restore it, you bet! Boy, this was fast and painless to do, why didn't we think of it earlier.:) --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazing when great minds work alike, isn't it? All we need is the frosting on the cake, and the important image should remain from now on. I wish it could always work this smoothly! Doc9871 (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it took a whole minute to resolve this. What's amazing is none of us thought to do this in the first place! :) Oh well, live and learn I guess. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Durova came up empty. I am inclined to simply replace the photo. Dunno what kind of license would protect it better than the free use note I already had on it, which seemed perfectly adequate to me. Vidor (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into additional and further appropriate tags. I can't see how this image can truly be copyrighted, as it is part of the evidence presented at a criminal trial (non-pending, and the outcome was decided). We have to (all three of us) try to find this credit, and it will get done much more quickly, as the re-insertion of the image was. This is a second chance for the image, and I don't see there being a third chance unless the sourcing satisfies WP... Doc9871 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored? Super. As for how to fix the sourcing--well, frankly I don't know. I mean, we all know where the photo came from. It was taken by the Salt Lake police department. Willing to do what I can, of course. Vidor (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You did upload it originally, correct? Where exactly did it come from? Perhaps we can get a "tag" with the proper source on it, and satisfy the WP requirement. The photographer's name. We must find exactly what is required to keep this image... Doc9871 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did I find it? Here, on a discussion forum. Forum discussion thread here. Vidor (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We can't use ExecutedToday.com as a source. In the file description page, we have, "Image already published in The Only Living Witness, The Stranger Beside Me and The Riverman". My copy of The Stranger Beside Me is 400 miles away in a box. Does anyone have any one of these books that shows the picture credit? Doc9871 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I do...at home, and I'm at work right now. I'll check those books. I know that image has been published in Bundy books. Should be a matter of finding a copy and getting the credit. I'll check back here, hopefully later tonight. Vidor (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sweet! No rush at all, and please take your time. When we're through, this irreplaceable image will be properly credited beyond refutation. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong--only two of the books I have include that image, and those are "The Riverman" and the recent (and inferior) "The Bundy Murders". Keppel's book says of the photo "Courtesy of the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department". Sullivan's more recent book says "Courtesy of the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office and the King County Archives". I suppose we can go with Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office, which appears to be the actual name of the organization. Oddly, I ran across news stories saying that the Sheriff's Office was changing its name to the "Unified Police Department" as of January 2010, but no website for the department under its current name. Anyway, that's what I have, and that's what I'm going with. If anyone has, say, hardback copies of the relevant source books maybe they could contribute. (I'm working with paperbacks, except for Polly Nelson's book which I bought used and I think was never printed in paperback.) Vidor (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice! Hopefully the source is okay... but we have one more small problem. See the new tag concerning reducing the image size? I'm not sure if this is a time-sensitive tag, meaning if the image is not reduced it will be automatically deleted again. If it's not one thing it's another... Doc9871 (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My computer skills are limited, frankly. I guess sometime in the next few days I could give a try and see if I can figure out how to make the image smaller. But not too small. I wouldn't want to make it smaller than the size of the thumbnail currently posted, definitely. Vidor (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am back. Thanks! And the first thing I did was remove posts from my talk page (well, almost the first). And while I'm thinking about it, §. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Right now I just looked at Ann Rule's book but it's not in there. I haven't pulled any of my others out yet. For now though I am almost positive that going with the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office would cover it. If memory serves me correctly the investigation when he was arrested the first time, was there. I say go for it. Did you notice that they want to now reduce the size which I don't have a problem with myself since we can still adjust it at the article level I think. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

One of these days I'm going to get to my local library, which has a copy of the excellent, lavishly illustrated 1980 hardback edition of "The Only Living Witness" to see if it's in there. (Really, how did Rule's crappy book become the standard bio?) But it's in at least two books, as I confirmed above. And you are correct that it was Utah authorities who arrested him first and took possession of that bag. I guess there's no public domain license for state of Utah employees or whatnot that we can post the photo under? Regarding the size of the photo--the first thing to do would be to crop out the handwritten caption at the bottom. Vidor (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually stopped by the library today but their copy of the original 1980 hardback of "The Only Living Witness" was checked out. Not that it matters; surely the two sources I already found attributing the photo to the S.L.S.O. should suffice. Anyway, regarding photo size, I surprised myself by successfully shrinking the photo down to pretty close to 1/2 size in Microsoft Paint. I uploaded that photo and have posted it on the talk page. Please take a look and see if that looks good to you and let me know if you think that's suitable as a replacement. The image is still big enough that you can make out the details, I think. Vidor (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's great! Hopefully the admins who tag images like this will remove the fixed tag, and this image will finally be left alone. I know they've got their assignments, and that there are a million images on WP that deserve to be deleted. This isn't one of them... Doc9871 (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good day, Mr Doc9871...

Maybe I was a bit too aggressive sometimes, but you can not recognize that this falls under freedom of expression, which is one of the fundamental pillars of democracy in both the U.S. and the EU?

Moreover, the very article about "Bellamy salute" contains several references to the defendant that "patriotism speech".

Why I can not take the view that "the flag salute is a way bigotry?

Constant "uncomfortable" criticism is the only way to progress, and it's necessary aspect of human conduct.

And a neutral point of view - Narovinu, t come all written in the English version of the article on the U.S. as totally objective, without any expression zmanipolovanosti and patriotism? Well not me, maybe because as a man away from the U.S. have a clearer view of the whole thing.

One example I had written criticizing the U.S. conduct in Iraq, I said the source, and yet my edits have been censored ... To think is correct?

--Fredy.00 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of expression is great. There are still rules, however. If someone feels like expressing themselves by running down the street naked, they can do it - but they will be arrested for it. WP rules were not written by me, but I have to follow them like every other editor; and so do you. If your edits violate the rules like they have been, they will be deleted by one of thousands of editors. That's just the way it is, and neither you nor I can do anything about it... Doc9871 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Not, it two ways:

1) That other authors were not stupid sheep, and did not follow the rules if they are stupid ...

2) Change the rules.

Anyway, this is again the difference bettven your and my culture - here, in the Czech Republic, are not zealots in law enforcement ... even the police, and they can use your brain as a filter to separate stupid law from that which is important.

If in your country to police and other people instead of a brain box laws, so that you really regret ... Even though, this case directs me to the idea that this indeed is: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/261082

--Fredy.00 (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh!! Take that, Doc! You got moted!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Abie! Yeah, Fredy's arguments usually trump mine. "Americans are stupid sheep, Nazi this and Nazi that..." - it's hard to compete with such rhetoric! Oh, well, hopefully he'll go back to legitimate editing (He seems fond of image uploading) and stop trying to convince me. 'Cause I'm convinced! We suck... Doc9871 (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it is rewarding. :) And yes, that's one of the best things about it. You end up hitting many more articles than you usually would. I'd suggest checking out WikiCleaner. I don't know if its ok for Mac or not. I'd think it would be. It's the main tool I use. Very very helpful. You see all of the article names at once, so its faster and less time consuming. But sometimes even I go the "old" route. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks, I'll look into WikiCleaner. The long, long lists and truly huge articles are horrendous to do manually (as I'm sure you know), esp. when the word is a small purple blurb in a sea of blue. But when I can visit, e.g. the Dionysus page to correct a link from the Bacchus disam page, and find that the image of Michelangelo's statue needed correcting in the caption... ahhh! My "nerdiness" in being thorough gets to be satisfied all the more. Thanks for responding, and Happy Disamming! Doc9871 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey no problem. :) Yeah once you get the hang of it, its a really nifty tool. And I know what you mean. If its a complex type of page, it can be a mess. But WikiCleaner is great for nationalities like American and British, which are linked to by 10+ articles every day but generally only have one target (United States and United Kingdom, respectively). If you need any assistance with it, let me know. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 194° 20' 30" NET 12:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Doc. I have granted you rollback rights. My only conditions are that a user has dealt with vandalism before, is unlikely to go on a rampage, and appears capable of understanding when using it is proper and when it should not be used and you fit all of the above. The most important thing to understand about rollback is that it is only to be used for blatant vandalism. It is not for any edit that might be vandalism but is not clearly so, including any edit that could be a test. I looked back through some of your past edits where you undid some edits and used the word vandal, and of course, most of them are indeed blatant vandalism, but a few would not be proper for use of rollback. For example: this edit is not clearly vandalism but rather could be a test edit, and this undo especially you should rethink even calling vandalism—highly inappropriate and properly reverted without a second thought, yes, but not vandalism. A few other things to note: Rollback reverts all edits of a user to a particular page that are contiguous, so if a user makes three edits, then a different user makes one, and then the original user makes five more, if you rollback, you will revert the last five. Please read as background Wikipedia:Rollback feature and Help:Reverting#Rollback. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please make a comment at File talk:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg? I am concerned about the source provided for that image. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

§. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that the person you chastised regarding Elizabeth Short having a middle name is Larry Harnisch, LA Times reporter and known expert on the Black Dahlia, don't you? Just because the FBI website in the title of the page on Short says her middle name is "Ann" doesn't make it true, ya know...there are many reliable sources that say (no, insist) she didn't have a middle name. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not just on the title page. Click on "Part 1" - the official header for the files. They're official FBI files, made public through the Freedom Of Information Act, and they are perfectly acceptable sources... Doc9871 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Except those files are wrong, and that has been proven time and again. Short's mother testified in court that her daughter had no middle name. Beyond all that, if you look at the end of the external links section of the article, you will see that the fact she had no middle name and that the FBI got it wrong is already noted there. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This needs to go to the talk page immediately. this is not a reliable source at all... Doc9871 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why "immediately"? Good grief. Fine, I'll remove that as a reference and keep the other. But whether or not you think the photo of the birth certificate is a good reference, the fact remains that she had not middle name and that fact is verifiable (not to mention already mentioned in the article as I stated above) <shrug> --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, today is the first I've ever looked at that article and I didn't realize it had just undergone an overhaul. I was wondering if this guy had really "fought in the Vietnam war" and followed the ISBN to the Amazon "look inside" copy. The claim that he "fought" there, as well as his claim of cannibalization should probably be tagged with a {{cn}}. If you have no objections I'll do so. Hopefully whoever wrote that can provide a cite.

BTW, I can't believe that family picture! --CliffC (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it at all - in fact, I was thinking about removing the cannibalization part entirely, since I've never heard about it. It's hard to know the extent of his role when he was in Vietnam, but it is certain that he lied constantly about his purported experiences. In Olsen's book (so far my main source), Shawcross claims he "came across three Green Berets tied to trees by their hands behind the tree. They were skinned from their necks to their ankles". Of course, one is still alive... I bet you can guess the rest. I think instead of "fought" in Vietnam, "served" is more appropriate. That part was written when I came to the page...

As far as the picture goes - that was in the Infobox initially. I moved it to where it is now and added the mugshot (see the talk page). Either Shawcross' daughter or granddaughter put it up; weird, huh? Glad to see another editor working on the article! Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Shawcross was with the 4th Supply and Transport Company of the 4th Infantry Division; not an infantryman. Some more of his absurd and preposterous "experiences" in Vietnam include, "how a baby crawled into Pleiku and blew up a crowd of people with a grenade wired to her body...", and, "...Didn't need food. Those days I ate wild bananas and monkey." This guy was a real piece of work... Doc9871 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll take the Vietnamese-girls-cannibalization out, I can't find any mention of it anywhere either, although the NY Times here says he 'cannibalized some' of the prostitutes. That picture -- weird indeed. Maybe he convinced them he was framed. Best, CliffC (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Shawcross parallel, sort of

I was trying to remember this guy's name to mention it, finally asked at the WP reference desk, my question at WP:Reference_desk/Humanities#Writer_of_book_.28or_article.29_falsely_reporting_Iraq_War_atrocities_by_US_troops, article is Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. I guess there's a lot of this going around and some people want to believe it. More poop at tinyurl.com/yap3fa9 CliffC (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, cool! Yes, this does appear to be a Shawcross-type liar (but a little more plausible in the tales). Thanks you showing me that; I've still got to get back to working on that section about Art. I'll probably put a little in two different places, with one of those places being the Ressler quote. Cheers! Doc9871 (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You want me to thank you for saying something to an admin that the admin was able to figure out on her own? Would you also like me to thank you for all of the negative stuff you've said about me on WP talk pages as well as that which you've said in private communications? When thanks are deserved I give them out liberally. In your case, I don't see it being deserved nor appropriate (thus far). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"...as that which you've said in private communications." What the heck does that mean? What private communications? Doc9871 (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly have I "said in private communications", I wonder. Is this cited as well? Can we include it in a talk page discussion? Please, enlighten me... Doc9871 (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Doc9871, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Doc9871. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help & support with the Eagles page, and for showing me how to fish! GoingBatty (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Johnwaynegacymug.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, and thanks for the warning template. You do realize, Rockfang, that "mug shots" are really on the fringe of WP:NFCC, right? The Des Plaines Police Department, as a public entity, cannot claim "copyright", nor can they legally profit financially from an image it releases to multiple media outlets worldwide. Avoiding potential lawsuits is what NFCC is really about, and no one really owns the copyright to this image; am I wrong? As the subject is deceased, and no free image exists or can be reasonably created, isn't this image okay? Text-only argument again? He's smiling in the mug shot (that you quite appropriately reduced) - and he's certainly not grinning in this image. Different encyclopedic value, I think. This image is "tagged-up" to the hilt, and now I will work to get it into the Commons. Thank you :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not mug shots as a whole can be copyrighted is a discussion I'd honestly rather not get into at the moment. Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions might be a place to discuss that. Right now though, the image is marked as being a non-free file. Part of the non-free content criteria says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." This file (assuming it is licensed correctly) is (in my opinion) a free equivalent.--Rockfang (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll just have to get this image on the commons I suppose; it should be free anyway. Any admins possibly watching, could I have some time to verify the "non-free" status of this image, as I believe it to be not copyrightable? Time Magazine (the source this was obtained from) does not own the copyright, nor does the Associated Press, and this image is (to my knowledge) public domain and simply not yet processed into WP Commons yet. Thank you! Doc9871 (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If the image is deleted, it probably won't be until a week from now. Just an fyi.--Rockfang (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And this photo is of historical significance as an original booking photo, widely circulated at the time of Gacy's arrest, a representation of him that is clear and valid and cannot be replaced since the man is dead. It meets every definition of valid fair-use under the circumstances: It is a booking photo that is not in the public domain, that illustrates the booking event and for which there is no free alternative that exists or could be created. It qualifies for use here under the "Non-profit educational" clause of the Fair Use doctrine currently upheld by United States law. (17 U.S.C. § 107). Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You and Doc may want to converse on whether or not the image is copyrighted. With regards to whether or not it is replaceable, if the admin that processes my tag thinks that the image should stay, I'll be content with that.--Rockfang (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think(?) that I need to converse with anyone on whether the image is "replaceable" if I can prove it's potentially (and rightfully) free, right? No limit to free images in articles, is there? Doc9871 (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are indeed correct.--Rockfang (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I"ll be on it, I assure you, kind sir! Doc9871 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Update - If I'm able to theoretically purchase a copy a the mug shot for $6 (provided it's available; I haven't contacted them just yet) here, and take a picture of it myself and upload it, I'm curious as to the status. Not that I would do this (I would not) without permission; but it's available under the Freedom Of Information Act. My goal is to get this into the Public Domain if there are no legal impediments. It's not a Federal mug shot (which is automatically free) - what happens if it's a non-Florida or California mug shot? Anyone real-life lawyers out there watching, especially Illinois-based? Any input would be greatly appreciated, as I am NOT a lawyer (but would like to be one someday ;P)... Doc9871 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's available under the FOIA, it's a public domain image from the federal government. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To Doc: If you took a photo of a photo, the rights (if the original wasn't public domain) would still belong to the author of the original image. This is similar to when people scan comic book covers and upload them to Wikipedia. Scanning and and taking a photo of something are essentially the same thing in this case. You can read more about that here.
To Wild: Just because a document or photo is received via the FOIA doesn't mean it has anything to do with the Federal Government. One example is the link that Doc provided above. Those are city/state documents, not documents from the Federal Government.--Rockfang (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As a scan of an image, it isn't analogous to a comic book, it's the same as any photo. And if an image is received as released by a government agency taken by them, it's fair game and can be properly licensed by them. Most importantly if he receives permission from them to reproduce it, or it is determined to be an historically significant image, such as this one, it qualifies just as the images released for other crime figures. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the closing admin thinks. Hopefully they will come here and read what all of us have said.--Rockfang (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see what the problem is with this image. It's released to public domain because it's a mugshot. We have historical images in crime articles just for this reason. There is no substitute for photos like this one. I think that Doc's and Wildhartlivie's explanations are clear and so I won't repeat it. This is the same kind of issue as we had with the Bundy tool kit image. It also was allowed to stay. I will just say I think the image is good for the article and should stay under the reasoning above. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is - is the photo in the public domain? Yes it is. The photo is a mugshot taken by a state agency of a subject suspected of a crime and booked by the agency at taxpayers expense, not the agencies. If the Illinois police department were privately funded, then the photo would not be in the public domain, nor the FOIA. Since the suspect was found guilty in a court of law, the case is closed and there are no pending appeals and therefore, no continuing investigations. The mugshot does not belong to the photographer, nor the agency, it is a work that falls within the public domain, paid for by the public - free access!19:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Victor9876 (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is this, [[4] The "Fair Use Doctrine".Victor9876 (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Victor9876, I don't know where you got the idea that any picture taken by a state agency at taxpayer expense is automatically in the public domain, but it's false. There is no such legal doctrine in the United States. States absolutely can, and do, claim copyright to work products created at taxpayer expense. Some states intentionally place their work products in the public domain, while other states do not. American Jurisprudence, Second Edition: "State governments and agencies are not barred from being copyright owners under statutory provisions which specifically exclude only the United States Government…" — Walloon (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The only way I can see to find out whether or not this image is public domain or not is to contact the City of Des Plaines and ask if they own the work; and if they do, will they give permission for us to use it (they gave Time Magazine permission, obviously). I will send an e-mail to the Clerk of the city, and see what the situation with the copyright is. Thank you all for your comments, both for and against! :> Doc9871 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I want to say, a mugshot of a famous criminal seems like a really commons, normal, and (dare I say) appropriate use of "fair use". That said, in the US, only works created by the FEDERAL government are in the public domain. Each state has different laws governing that (Florida is one of the only exemptions, where basically every other state still retains copyright). Localities may have different laws as well. Just because an image has been distributed, and is ubiquitous, does NOT mean it is public domain (though that gives us a better fair use rationale for sure). Unless there is clear, and explicit evidence that the work is in the public domain, we HAVE to assume it is copyrighted. Mugs shots are no exemption (but like I said, we most likely have valid fair use rationale, as we cannot possibly create a free mugshot). Just because Time magazine had "permission" (allegedly) to use the photo, does not mean they would give us permission, because you have to keep in mind, our permission requirement is much more lenient. The work has to be release explicitly under a free licenses (such as the CC-BY-SA, or Public Domain, or GFDL, etc), where Time magazine has no such requirement for use. I think exploring this matter further would be good. If we can track down the laws, or get an official statement from the corresponding government entity, that would be great. But I don't understand why we can't keep it as non-free (if further evidence to the contrary isn't produced). -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the further clarification (esp. concerning Time Magazine), Andrew c! I haven't sent the e-mail yet (as I'm waiting for good advice such as yours before I do). The clerk will hopefully inform me exactly as to the status of the copyright, and I will happily make that available here once we correspond. As for why this image shouldn't be kept as non-free; it seems that the very broad NFCC#1 is the basis for deletion of the image, not only from the article, but from WP entirely. I certainly agree that this image should be kept (and includable for the article) if it is found not to be Public Domain, and is rather tagged properly (as it has been all along) for non-free use... Doc9871 (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, if found to not be PD, this image probably fails #3a, as there are already 2 other mugshots. I don't see why 3 non-free mugshots are needed, especially when this one is so similar to another one (and doesn't include the profile like that one does). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best to find out if it's free. The early mug shot is far removed from the others, as it is taken well before his known murders, (though I completely understand where you're coming from on this, trust me). The main difference in the two mug shots is that Gacy is grinning "like the cat that just ate the canary" as if the entire affair is a "joke" in one mug shot (my opinion there on the image comment); and seems quite serious in the other shot, the FFD. I don't think the images are terribly similar just because they are mug shots, and especially considering the notoriety of the subject, as well as the absence of free images. I would argue for its inclusion if I cannot find it to be free or gain verified official permission to use it, as I personally don't believe it fails #3a. But you are not wrong at all in questioning the image under this policy. If it is found to fail #3a, I cannot argue against either policy or consensus, and would accept any decision made without protest. Cheers! :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You requested a reply on your talk page regarding your OTRS ticket Ticket:2010013110005424. I'm not altogether sure on what we are to do, since the email doesn't give us any permission. I note the image was kept at FFD. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Stifle! I don't know what can be done either, as I'm not sure if it is possible to get permission from Jeff Simon if he cannot be located to respond to copyright issues concerning his work (possibly deceased?). If David E. LeVine is currently in negotiations with the publisher concerning an image miscredited to Simon, and he can't find Simon, how can WP? Where could I seek permission? I could send another e-mail clarifying what exactly this is about, and if the publisher can contact Simon, maybe? Try to get permission from the publisher, if they somehow own the copyright? I'll do what is required - and again, I've never done this before, so any friendly advice is appreciated! Doc9871 (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: This image was originally put up for deletion based on NFCC#8 in The Doors article only, and I have attempted to get it into the Commons if it all possible. I still don't believe it violates #8, and it survived FFD based on that. I was asked to find the source and credit, which I did. I'm more interested in finding out if this image is legally public domain, and have made real efforts to determine this; but if it is not, I still do not feel the image should be deleted based on NFCC#8. Doc9871 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The best option would be to try to contact the copyright holder by any means possible; unfortunately we can't help with that. It would seem unlikely that the image is public domain. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I will contact the publisher (and Mr. LeVine again) via e-mail concerning the image. I do agree that it's unlikely to be a public domain image, as even if the author were deceased, the copyright still wouldn't expire for decades. I was looking for advice in that "gray area"; where a source can't be located though real-life legal proceedings, such as the dispute between LeVine and Simon over the credits to another (separate) photograph with the publisher. I will do what is asked; though I would respectfully request a "hold" on the deletion of this image from WP pending this correspondence, as the image is currently tagged for non-free use. Thanks! Doc9871 (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The image does not appear to be in any danger of deletion at this time. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your kind words. But I realize who I am dealing with and I have to let that article go, however unsatisfactory it is. Are you aware of the sockpuppetry tag on your talk page? userpage? How come you don't remove it? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I put it there myself; read who I'm accused of being a sockpuppet of, and then a few sentences down from it. I put it up to protest specious and unfounded sockpuppet accusations that I saw flying around at the time. It's more for "protest humor" than anything... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad you're not an admin. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Who knows... one day maybe! (Or am I an "admin sock") Hehheee JK :> Cheers, Rms125a@hotmail.com! Doc9871 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have reverted it [5]. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about it, and certainly wouldn't have a problem with an editor doing that. The "Dawn's Highway" thing is looking a little... how you say? Ready to go... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"listing him in any religious category is debatable. "

Come to think of it you may have a point. If you want to just do away with the religion category altogether I'll support you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuudder (talk • contribs) 02:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's wise. See the Bundy talk page for *that* subject - and could we please keep discussion on the subject at the Bundy talk page? Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a paragraph might be interesting for the readers about how Bundy used religion in his life. I mean with what is on the talk page and the references available, it adds a little bit different to the article. I have talked about this on the talk page but as far as I know no one has commented about the suggestion for a paragraph. Your comments about this would be appreciated though. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you that you change here was real good. (Not the link I had in mind but I guess you get the idea, :) well I hope so.) Keep up the good work. You know, I enjoy working with you when we are at the same article. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Crohnie! WHL's research cemented that change, and when I first looked into it (without knowing many facts of the case), it only made sense. To "sever" a person in two would almost necessitate it being at the waist, below the ribcage and above the hips. It's horridly gruesome, but that's the area with the least amount of bone that would be needed to be "negotiate" severing someone in half. The fact that she was drained of blood and had the smile slashed on her face... a really sad, shocking and horrible case. We can all work to get this article beyond the class it is at now (especially with citations)... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'll kindly take a look at the edit history, I believe you'll see I wasn't the one who removed that. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about then; my mistake. Thanks for getting back to me, and happy editing, TPIRFanSteve :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It's all good. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Doc9871. See the 3RR complaint at [6], where you have commented. I am considering closing the case with six months of full protection. This would require editors wanting a change in the article to use {{editprotected}} to make changes, and show that their change has consensus. Since you appear to be following the article, but not be one of the regular editors, I'd be interested in your response. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston! This is tough one to figure out, because the subjects these editors war over have such heated and polar opposite points of view. It's basically an editing microcosm of the unending conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine. Neither "hard-line" side wants to even acknowledge the other's existence as a nation (not that these editors are this way). A six-month full protection for this article isn't a bad idea at all, but I fear that more might have to be done with editors who have an "agenda" when it comes to very sensitive topics like this. NPOV editing can't be done by anyone who isn't more or less neutral on a topic, and there is not a lot of neutrality here. I need to look into the history of the conflicts between this group a little further, but I've seen your work, and you are dealing with this quite fairly (as usual). I know as a blocking admin you've seen this bunch before, and they certainly appear on the 3RR page frequently. I can comment on the page, but I need to get a little better grip on the total situation before I make another remark. Thanks for the reply, Ed! :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on my talk page. These two editors are a pain. The SPI is now closed and what was said in the closing showed to me that no one read what Keepcalm said about the relationship s/he had with Simone. They are coworkers and keepcalm helped Simone learn Wikipedia, years ago. Simone's first language isn't English so I think she uses a tool to help when editing and article. The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome article is a disaster. Back when I edited there it was over run with patients and advocates who were white washing the article. Another editor left too. What I find amazing is that they felt the need to come and attack me with words like cabal when I never ever said anything like that. I don't understand though mainly why they got upset because I stood up for Simone. I've had to remove some really nasty things from Simone talk page. Other than our contact at the CFS and her talk page we have had no other contacts. Really, the whole situation is sad because I feel like they are just trying to remove editors that have a different opinion. Oh well the SPI is closed now so hopefully the attacks against me will end. I was accused of being in a cabal and I hated it so I would never do that to anyone else. Thanks again for popping in, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Anytime :> When I see a Userpage like this, I'm concerned for dedicated editors like ourselves. If certain parties want to "bring WP down from the inside" (my terminology), then WP really has no chance. Openly sour attitudes to the project can't possibly improve it (though actually constructive criticism is necessary). No editors who contribute positively will be "removed", so don't worry about that. You are a cabal of one; no provable link to any false "cabal". Cheers, Crohnie! :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Doc, I just wanted to drop by and say thanks and please don't be mad at me. If you look at my talk page you will understand what I mean. It's come to the point that I feel I am running out of choices here. Oh and by the way, I sent you an email to say thank you too. Bye for now, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. - just wanted to let you know that I responded on my talk page to your inquiry about the munged AN/I comment. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think your going a little over the top on this one?--Levineps (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How so? Doc9871 (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was quoting a song and saying I wasn't going to give up. Not that I was going to suit you or physically confront you. I think you gotta take a chill pill, doc.--Levineps (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeppers. He said he would continue his fight, but a civil one, i.e. "Civilly", as in not resorting to incivility, not "Legal" proceedings. Sheesh. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I fucked up, and I'm trying to strike my comments on the board, but I keep getting new messages about it. Sorry about that, y'all; let me remedy it, okay? My bad... Doc9871 (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Righty O. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought he meant "civil lawsuit" rather than "civil" fight. I'm glad it wasn't a legal threat, and I'll be more careful about my accusations in the future. Sorry for any misunderstanding caused by me (my face is still quite red right now)! Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:StoneCanyonBand1.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Poor.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doc, just want to bring to your attentions this. After all that we went through, esp. Vidor, to get the image allowed, it's now MIA from the article. Weird! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing this image, not this one in the article. Same image, different names for them. We'll get to the bottom of it :> Good to hear from you, Crohnie, and we'll keep one of these images in, no worries! Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked too, it's weird to say the least. I was stupid and looked through the history first then at the article. Personally I think the smaller image would be better but that is my personal opinion. Thanks, Doc, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like an accidental duplicate file, if that's the case, let them delete it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing you did was "stupid", my dear; you just must be confident that the image (by whatever name or size) won't be deleted from now on, no matter what a "bot" says. We've won the fight for this image to be in WP, and while it will be challenged from time to time, it will remain to educate WP readers. Good call for alerting me to this! Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, you're so level headed. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I would like to inform you that I took down my notice at my talk page. :) I am hoping things here will be a lot more enjoyable and less stressful now plus I am feeling a lot better now. I would like to bring to your attentions this at Vidor's talk. I would like if you have time to weigh in on what I had to say about the images. Thanks Doc, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Very glad to see you're "un-retired", and (more importantly) that you're feeling better! Since all of the images on Bundy's article are "free", and seeing so many articles lacking images because they are not free, I'd be against removing ANY image there, personally; and I'll leave that on Vidor's page right after I finish this post. This article needs all the images there (sizes should/can be reduced where deemed appropriate). Cheers, Crohnie! :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Doc, I was very careful (maybe not well enough though) about what I said on my talk page about my lack of availability. I didn't go retired at all, I just said I wouldn't be available and that I would be here ocassionally but would not be here that often (until the blah, blah, don't want to be accused of anything again.) until behaviors were stopped and I was feeling better.  :) Since the new rules are in place from the discussion at WP:AN, I thought it best to remove my notice at the top since in the past few days I've been doing a lot at recent changes and other locations. Editing lately has become a lot more fun and less stressful I'm happy to say. :) I saw your comment at Vidor's and his for that matter and responded. I am not proposing deleting anything though other than the images needed to be less dominating which has been done now. I agree with you totally. I have just seen problems with images being to prominent in an article causing a lot of wasted time. I definitely agree with what you say above and what is said at Vidor's talk. I'm feeling a lot better, now I'm just trying to get my energy level up to some kind of level that allows me to do things around here without having to nap. :) Your a good egg Doc, we need more like you! :) Thanks Doc,--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey I just noticed the sock investigation template on your user page. I searched to see an SPI case that needs no administrator needed per the template. Who are you accused of being and who did the accusing? Have I missed something here? --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I accused myself of being my own sockpuppet a while ago, and I'm still suspected of being this. I still wonder from time to time... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, by asking that the thread be archived mid-stream, you did manage to get the last word in. And I note that you and Equazcion were listed by SRQ as in WHL's 'house'. Sometimes this amounts to meatpuppetry (and sometimes meatball:DefendEachOther does apply). Anyway, no, I don't agree with you that the best approach is to let sleeping dogs lie; for starters, they're not sleeping. I've seen most everything on this site. Check back on a lot of issues I've opined on, and you'll find I've often been right. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 01:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying it's best not to comment on it for now. There is an interaction ban in place, and dogs are sleeping when they weren't before. It's in everyone's best interest to let things take their course for now. The AN discussion thread was going to be closed soon, believe me; it had nothing to do with me or you... Doc9871 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It was SRQ who named you as in WHL's 'house', not I; I've no idea really, as I've never noticed you before. I only commented in that thread because WHL was casting aspersions my way again. And I've seen plenty to indicate that neither is sleeping, so little appears properly sorted; as the say, discussion is encouraged. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 01:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course discussion is encouraged, but not anymore there, apparently. Xeno (or another admin) was going to have it closed there; this is clear... Doc9871 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is going circular. The sequence of events here is that Equazcion shuffled the bickering off to the talk page inappropriately (better to have boxed it in place), and discussion that would otherwise have occurred on WP:AN (or not at all), rolled along on the wrong page. I'm going to suggest that the thread be restored to WP:AN in a collapse box for proper archiving. The whole bicker-fest between WHL and SRQ is just another aspect of the ambient toxic environment. And that is caused by a failure of the system to purge itself of toxins in a timely manner. When a body's kidney's fail to piss-away toxins, they accumulate and quickly cause severe issues. Better to tell the toxic to piss-off than to nap with obstructed kidneys. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Do what you feel you must. Cheers!... Doc9871 (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I don't like the looks of edits such as this one little bit. If you call me an "idiot" or a "nitwit", we're not going to have much to talk about, now are we? Assume good faith in other editors, Jack... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You're mis-reading that edit; it's me restoring a personal attack directed at myself by an anon for the purpose of replying to it. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I did see that after posting and looking into it further; sorry 'bout that :> But, the language is still important (be it joking, refactoring, etc.) No need to cast dispersions, and the recent AN mention of WHL & SRQ as "tedious" and "disruptive" is not going to be well-received; this you must understand. I don't make the rules or the "status quo", but we have to abide (or at least be aware of) them. Everyone wants to move on from this; I would suggest that you take the same path as well and let things settle down... Doc9871 (talk)

No problem. You may not be aware, but I have my own open issue with WHL. And while I like "dispersions" and "tedious", I said aspersions and tendentious. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack Merridew said "I only commented in that thread because WHL was casting aspersions my way again." I certainly have no idea where that came from. I've not said anything to or about Jack Merridew since he made a proposal and I agreed, until this little ripple. I have not cast aspersions on him, so using that an as excuse was simply an excuse to jump on the bandwagon. Jack Merridew's name was not mentioned in that thread, nor was he the point of anything I said there. That simply an excuse to put in his two cents, although this next comment is. Pointing out sock issues is sort of hypocritical given his history. My comments there had nothing to do with you, so don't jump in and claim that. You have no clue about what was going on. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd have ignored this were it not for the fact that your above post added this page to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle; you omitted a ':', which I'm fixing. Yes, I'm a sockpuppet, something I've long acknowledged. You would be well advised to do the same.

You've cast a great many aspersion my way, which is certainly no way to resolve issues.

As to where that came from, it was quite clear that you were referring to me in this edit: And by the way, the other editor who I said was stalking my edits actually admitted to doing that very thing, so that is supported.. My comment was this, and the whole thing is back in hat-box at WP:AN#Proposed interaction ban between SkagitRiverQueen and Wildhartlivie.

And please don't assume what I have a clue about. I don't comment much where I've not done my homework. Regards, Jack Merridew 22:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Once more, I was not referring to you. There's nothing said there that would lead to make that incorrect assumption. I will not say who it was that said that, it's frankly no one's business. There is much going on underfoot and behind the scenes and you have no idea what that is about. But you know, if you prefer to think you were a part of that, assume away. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone ever referred you to WP:STICK?

While you may not have been referring to me, there is plenty to lead I and others to believe you were referring to me, and it's certainly a matter of the wiki-communities business as you were casting aspersions against whomever. SRQ correctly pointed out that you were regularly making wiki-stalking allegations as a tactic towards folks you had disagreements with and that's a pretty well understood evasive tactic these days. Regards, Jack Merridew 00:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(@Doc9871; feel free to box this damn thread that won't go to sleep;)

Think what you like, stating that someone had admitted to stalking my edits is not casting aspersions on anyone. The fact that you were following my edits around is fairly a side issue. Like I said, if you want to make it about you, feel free to take on that crown. And just to clarify, you are the one that brought this up. And since you are well aware of current issues, it is poor behavior for you to try and elicit comment from me. Bah on that and poor conduct. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	You are consistantly hard working editor who is a total pleasure to work with. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel you deserve this barnstar for everything you have done to help the project. Enjoy and keep up the good work. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We have an editor who unilaterally made a decision on the infobox concerning the Magical Mystery Tour album without regards to the discussion in the talk page. Can you look at the article and possibly revert the edit? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Steelbeard1! I'm just now looking at it. It does seem to be an issue that needs to be "ironed out". Give me a few short minutes... Doc9871 (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well does it matter if it's termed a policy or a guideline? It's a clear guideline and it clearly applies in the case of the earlier two singles -- why not follow it? The guideline was created subsequently to the discussion on the talk page, no doubt to try to stop wasting time on similar discussions in the future. Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy is WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, etc. Guidelines are less stringent, and can include... oh, crap. You know this stuff, right? So where do "Guides" fit in? Take a guess... Doc9871 (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You missed the point: why not follow the guideline where it clearly applies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrapped in Grey (talk • contribs) 07:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote a "guide" as "policy" is what I was mostly addressing, WIG. This point shouldn't be missed by an editor, more importantly. Other editors have an issue with your changes: it must be resolved on the talk page before your edit is accepted through the reaching of WP:Consensus (which requires discussion). Cheers :>... Doc9871 (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, enjoy your discussion; I won't be wasting any more time on it. Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Until next time, right ;> Guess it wasn't that important if you refuse to discuss the edit with those that disagree. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right, the contents of the guideline are unimportant to me. I care only that the guideline should be followed, but if you guys want to debate the merits of following guidelines you're welcome to. I shall return when that particular piece of madness is over. Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF is a strong "guideline", very close to policy. "Below is a basic guide to writing an article on a specific album of music; this is only a guide and you should feel free to personalize an article as you see fit, though others may change it to fit our standards." This is a WikiProject style "guide", open to almost any change and interpretation according to the editor. Policy>Guideline>Guide>"Suggestion"... Doc9871 (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite having been given ample opportunity on the talk page, the complainant appears unable to give any reason why he thinks the guideline should not be followed in this case (other than the somewhat unhelpful, it's "obvious"). Please revert your revert. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that only one person complained as noted in the current discussion. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Steelbeard1 is the complainant, i.e. the guy who objected (but with out being able to give any reason) to applying the guideline to the article. Doc9871, you've created one hell of time-waster here, don't you think you ought to come off the side line and try to sort it out? − Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I created the "time waster", really. My computer is on the fritz (I'm borrowing a friend's right now). Spilling a beer on your laptop on St. Patrick's Day really sucks, I can tell you. You asked me to revert my revert; you can revert it if you want to, and I won't revert it back. However, once again, this isn't about "reverts" but consensus, and others will respond how they may. I should be back as soon as I get my computer cleaned up... I'll be on "choppily" until then. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the laptop; sounds like it was a good St. Patrick's day otherwise :>. But..., you played the "consensus needed" card for an argument which, as you can see (start from "Update:"), has no foundation and is just sucking time. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrapped in Grey is acting like a dictator again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Steelbeard1, that is a lie; you are just digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you're digging the deeper hole. But I have a solution. No singles subsection in the album infobox. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The evidence of your lies and disruptive behavior is there for all to see; denying it and accusing others won't change that. As already said, put the WP:STICK down. Seriously, you need to take a break. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You are still missing the point, but no matter. The singles section of the album infobox has been killed and that settles the dispute once and for all. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out by other editors, you never made a point — that was the problem. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you read all the entries? Again, no consensus emerged. That's the point. BTW, following your guidelines, I removed the singles section of the album infobox in the Please Please Me article because they violate your guidelines because of two singles with songs issues before their inclusion in that album. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

They are not my guidelines, they are WP guidelines created to make WP useful/consistent and our lives easier. When they clearly apply (and they do for Please Please Me) then great, apply them. It's less clear with SPLHCB, but note that Ob-la-di Ob-la-da lost out on being listed as a single from the White Album. Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you mosey on across and, if you have an opinion, voice it. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting this. I guess I got them angry over something during vandal patrolling! LOL. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Anytime :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

is unwelcome on my talk page. Jack Merridew 08:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Too bad. Start your own Wiki... Doc9871 (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Doc9871, when people tell you they don't want you on their talkpage, the correct course of action is to stop posting there. Unless you have something new and exceedingly important to convey, which in this case you don't. Please stop now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No answers to questions I've asked, only accusations of "trolling" and erasing legitimate concerns to the project I'm raising? Stop what now, Future Perfect? You think I'm editing inappropriately? Please, enlighten me, sir... Doc9871 (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop what? Stop posting to his page, since he's asked you not to. If he doesn't feel like answering your questions, that's his prerogative. So, yes, I do think that by insisting and reinstating your questions repeatedly, you were editing inappropriately, and yes, this is a warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what - I won't post to his page again: happy? I don't know what the charm is with this editor, or why he's allowed to sock away happily with no fear of reprisal; but you are clearly warning me, I guess. I'll bust the sock party up, with or without your "approval". It's sad when admitted rogue editors have "control" over what is allowed on their talk page (esp. when the project really owns the page to begin with). I guess I gotta file a formal investigation just to get a few simple answers, huh? I know if it was me, I'd just give the answers and clear myself, because I am clean of sockpuppetry. Unlike others. Thanks for the warning, Cheifaroonie! Doc9871 (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

what was the q? am i socking? no. Jack Merridew 09:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Umm... you erased the original "q" several times. See, you can reply on my talk page, and I won't whine and cry about it, or erase it. You're not socking now? Are you "reformed"? "Learned your lesson"? Bah!!! Doc9871 (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And remember, Davenbelle, the diffs always remain, whether you "tidy up" your little page or not... Doc9871 (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You really should start a formal investigation. It would be more constructive than your hints and allegations at Eudemis and Jack Merridew.   pablo_hablo. 10:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was editing one of my post and neglected to log in. Eudemis (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Also my IP address changes almost constantly because I travel so much and I'm on the road. Today it is 67.32.129.182 (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• When I travel, and my IP address changes, I still log into WP through my account; not random IP's. "Forgetting to sign in" is not an option for most WP editors, you see. Why you would use an IP again after being warned by Kleinzach on April 3, 2009 not to? Did you forget each time on April 7, 9, 12, and 15? Something's not quite right here, and I hope for your sake you're clean. The investigation continues... Cheers ;> Doc9871 (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following you. I was a new editor in April 2009 and was learning wikipedia and how to sign edits. You'll see a few clumsy attempts at signing /dating entries in long form. Your instincts are off.Eudemis (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Things like this, among others, are interesting. If my instincts are off, I apologize. Don't worry; if you're clean, you're clean. I'll be first to admit I'm wrong when I am. We'll see soon enough. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• The more I look into this, the more disturbing it gets. First of all, who were you before you created the Eudemis account? No new editor, for their very first edit on WP, inserts a perfectly cited source like this, which was on Dec. 15, 2008 (not as "new" as April, 2009). At the same time your admitted IP sock is created; you edited concurrently with it, and when you forget to sign in, a bot signs you in as Eudemis (such as after this). And this IP, 129.74.18.183 has been "Battling" at Kathleen's article since Aug. 23, 2006. All of you have no relation to each other (other than what you've admitted concerning the first IP)? Are you telling me you have never edited WP before Eudemis/So far identified IP's? For a new editor, you sure seemed to know a lot about ownership, spotless referencing, and a lot more, right off the bat... Doc9871 (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Did you sign out as Eudemis after this edit, only to "forget" to sign in two minutes later for this? Extremely suspicious to me... Doc9871 (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of your connection to Wildhartlivie which explains a lot. Please, rather than continue to cast accusations and clutter up my talk page, request a formal investigation if you have uncovered inappropriate activity. Eudemis (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And what connection would that be? The one that lets you off the hook for possibly breaking policy regarding sock editing? The one that allows you to launch multiple personal attacks? Connections or no connections, you are still accountable for your behavior. And you should be held accountable for the myriad policies you've broken. You still must answer for behavior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Doc, if you have evidence, like what you are showing above, I would say definitely go for an SPI investigation. Eudemis, you keep saying so and so editor is connected to so and so editor. What is the connection you feel is inappropriate going on that you feel you have to keep mentioning this? The way you say it, it can be taken as a personal attack. As I know you've been told, some editors edit in areas the same due to having the same interest in the same kind of articles. This doesn't mean something bad is happening. I work with both these editors a lot because they have a bunch of articles on their watchlist that I do. This happens. If you have had any other accounts, it's your responsibility to be clear about that. You can redirect them to your account now or you can just put on your user page that you were also (add in account(s). If you read WP:Sock you will see that you should be open to show any accounts you have used. If you don't have any other accounts then please just say so. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• @ Eudemis - I'm working on an investigation, as you can see. Very simple questions were asked, but if you don't want to answer me, you're certainly not obligated to. You were a brand-new WP editor when you created Eudemis, though, right? It's proven you've used at least one IP in addition to the Eudemis account, and for some reason nothing was done about it. That may very well change... Doc9871 (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Not saying anything, but we just had to block an edit warrer over at Alan Vega - kept insisting on this one ref - and ended up being blocked [7]. As soon as we had a dispute this warrer had thrown out SOCK suspicions [8] and then started wikilawyering on us. I pointed out he/she had only 97 edits - and was smartly put down that he/she had edited "hundreds of articles" [9]. Anyway, with the block in place, lo and behold, up shows Eudemis to insert essentially the same ref. [10] Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting - thanks for the info, Wwwhatsup! Eudemis certainly has an amazingly advanced grasp of WP for an editor with not even 300 edits, much like Jetblack500; both like to toss around ownership and sock accusations as well. I should have more time to look into this soon, as my home computer will be fixed. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent posts are unacceptably divisive. If you have an issue with Jack Merridew, you need to raise it in a calm and collegial manner. Excessively snarky posts like the ones in this exchange are unacceptable. If you think Jack is socking, make a formal report at SPI. If you continue to snipe, you may find your editing privs restricted. (that goes for Jack too, actually, he should not be rising to your baiting). This is the only warning from me you will receive. Removal of it (which is within policy, I note) will be deemed as acknowledgment that it has been read and understood. ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't "remove" posts on my talk page, thank you very much; I settle the issue here. I've received the warnings loud and clear. You actually can own your own page on WP, it seems. You can decide who posts to it, and who is not "acceptable" or "worthy" of commenting. Understood. But have my many questions been adequately addressed? Hardly. Thanks for the tip, though, Lar... Doc9871 (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Since you are commenting in two places, I've continued this conversation at my talk. I prefer to keep things together. ++Lar: t/c 10:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You may have many questions. So? I should care? I've answered your core question; I'm not editing with any other account and a lot of people are quite sure of it. Your posts at me regarding this are pure bad faith trolling and warrant little in the way of a reply; i.e. I've replied moar than adequately. But by all means, have some more rope. It might be instructive for you to check out another such poorly-conceived effort. Jack Merridew 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Jack, stay off this page. If you want Doc9871 off your page, stay off his. Yeesh. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back to you, too. How's the new computer working out? Any enlightening discoveries yet? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just getting back into it - computer works great, though! Time is on my side, and the diffs always remain - look out, stinking socks! Doc9871 (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

dude, get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkfy7cf (talk • contribs) 08:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Duly noted. Nice retort, BTW; you'll go far here... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I must say- the doppelganger sock puppet thing was pretty funny. Tkfy7cf (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Which one? So many Doppelgangers out there, aren't there? Doc9871 (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The one where you accused yourself of sockpuppetry. And no, I'm not a sockpuppet. Tkfy7cf (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither am I. Or am I? Sometimes I'm unsure of myself ;P Cheers...Doc9871 (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure you are welcome. I'll keep in mind the stern warning thing. I wonder if there are other laws of the land to cite on that one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Right? And I'm glad I'm welcome; if an RFC/U is opened, I'll chime in (and be accused of being a meat puppet, I'm sure...) Doc9871 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I know you're watching, and I would like you to respond here (if you feel like it). I'd still like to know about Eudemis; forget about the "nastiness". Was it just because he was in a conflict with WHL, the cookie and user page fix? I'm not saying he's your sock; but why the relationship with him at all, if not for spite against WHL? I'm asking, not accusing. Say it was spite, and it would make more sense... Doc9871 (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment here in the interest of ending your little witch hunt. However, foremost in my mind is the question: What business is this of yours?

The cookie was a passing along of one I'd been given by Phil a day or so before; the template explicitly suggests passing it on. I believe I noticed Eudemis due to him being inappropriately targeted as a sock and being badgered by you and others; however the noise on his talk page went last month, I've not looked back, today. And the user page fix was trivial, and what piqued my interest there was the opportunity to format a table with the headings in the left column, not the top row. This is perfectly correct, semantically appropriate, and news to most editors. We're supposed be welcoming to newcomers; I'm sure there's a handy shortcut that I'm not going to bother finding. I made more substantive changes to User:MikeAllen and, I think, fixed the padding on his talk page. He is obviously not a friend of mine, unless, of course, you think he's me, too.

Also, please do not leave talkback templates on my page; we hates them. ;) Jack Merridew 23:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, understood: no more TB's. I really do appreciate the answers, and no, I don't believe Mike Allen is you. I do know that Eudemis is someone besides Eudemis, and he's a proven IP socker. "Badgering"? I tagged him two days after your cookie, so, you didn't notice me on his ass before that involvement (my first). My business is what I make of it, much like yours. Thanks again for the info, and you're always welcome here, Jack. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - This is mildly interesting to me; maybe not to everyone. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

see also: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Jack Merridew 10:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You're getting "off-topic" again, Jack. "Eudemis" and "You". Not further sock/meat accusations against WHL. You think I'm a meathead, too? Pfftt. I'm happy for you that you're quite prolific in the project, BTW... Doc9871 (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete — Non-notable topic. See also: User:LaVidaLoca++; the bust stands, despite mere assertion otherwise. ;) Jack Merridew 10:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Cute. You're really going to bring up another editor's past for socking? Too rich... Doc9871 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a distinction: I'm honest about my past. Pro-tip; it's informative to review the logs of CUs, who have serious clue. Jack Merridew 11:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

People "hop" IP's, and people who really want to avoid detection avoid editing the same articles (lest they be easily detected). I know what SPI is about: trust me. CU is not the "end-all-be-all": questioning proven past offenders often helps, too. It's never "cut-and-dried", Jack. Why would anyone ever sock in the first place? You tell me... Doc9871 (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

WTF is this? If you think you have sufficient support to make an unfounded sock accusation about me in regard to Pinkadelica, please PLEASE go ahead and file an SPI so that you can make a fool of yourself and Chowbok's same accusations, Jack. PLEASE file it. I beg you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

WTF is any of this? - Doc, re your previous post on my talk, I see there's no action yet, just more baiting.   pablo_hablo. 21:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Again with the "baiting". This is hardly clogging up an AN/I thread: it's a civil user talk page discussion (on mine, not his). I'm not "baiting" Jack, and he didn't have to respond here if he didn't want to. My post to your page was in response to your posting first. Thanks for breaking this up; you've been a tremendous help... Doc9871 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there is a conversation going on at the talk page that you may be interested in here If you have time I'd appreciate any input you may have towards whether the use of Ann Rule's book Small Sacrifices is a good source to use in the 'Aftermath' section to describe the kid's permanent damage done to them from the shooting they survived. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Beat ya to it ;> Doc9871 (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Doc, I have responded in more detail to your comments on the William Connolley talk page ([16]), but I feel it is important to draw your attention to the fact that the article falls under the terms of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. While it is inappropriate to use the talk page of any article as a platform for personal attacks on biographical subjects (especially living subjects), the probation means that you should be particularly cautious in your approach to editing in this area. Feel free to suggest improvements to the article – or even to nominate it for deletion, if you can demonstrate that the outcome of previous nominations was incorrect – but don't use the talk page for insults. It's just not a good thing to do — and it may lead to future restrictions on your editing privileges. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is the basis for a WP BLP, then anyone with a decent job deserves their own article. "He is also a contributer to Wikipedia." Wow. Generations will remember him for that, I'm sure... Doc9871 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned specifically about this edit: [17], where you imply that William Connolley is one of the "swelled heads" who "can always create articles about themselves and pretend they are notable here". It's both namecalling and just plain false. I'm cautioning you not to do it again; that's all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is where "general discussion" comes into play (apparently verboten). I didn't call William anything; it's really not about William at all. It's about notability in general... Doc9871 (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Doc trust me, stay away from this article and all articles under Climate change. They are a mess and not something you want to be getting into. I don't know what brought you there but whatever it was, go a different direction. I watch some of the activities that go on and it's not a pretty sight at all. There is enough drama around not to look for it here. ;) Be well,--CrohnieGal^Talk 17:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I hear ya, Crohnie; thanks. What led me there was my hysterical fear of global warming and all its evils. Hopefully, the next Ice Age will come around soon; maybe even a little one. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In the future, I would recommend not using article talk pages for 'general discussion'. If you don't believe that your remarks apply to William Connolley or his biography, it is best not to comment where the casual observer might assume that you were referring to him. I'm sure that you can understand how confusion of that sort might arise.

Incidentally, can you provide some examples of cases where "swelled heads" have successfully "created articles about themselves", pretending to notability? Since you didn't have William Connolley in mind, I imagine that you would have some other cases at hand. In my experience, Wikipedia editors are generally pretty good about smacking down vanity articles. With more than three million articles on the project, sometimes individual cases slip through the cracks — but usually it's more a case of non-notable individuals' articles not drawing any attention, rather than an active effort to maintain them on the project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice, and I do wish there was a really good forum for "general discussion". William's O.K. in my book (as if my opinion matters ;>), and he'll see no more trouble from me on his talk page. Sometimes I can be a little "confrontational" and "abrasive"... even a "dink", but I'm not here to actually disrupt anything; just make people think. Hey! That rhymes! Thanks again, TenOfAllTrades! Doc9871 (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

For general discussion, try the appropriate section of the WP:Village Pump. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks, man! :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Doc! I was bored and decided to bring you a cupcake. Enjoy!

Tkfy7cf (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Gee, you get cupcakes and I get demeaned. I'm jealous. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You should be jealous, WHL - my delicious cupcake was for actually disagreeing with him here. Thanks, Tkfy7cf! Doc9871 (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by this 69.138.165.244 (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Did I stutter? It was very nice of Jack to help you. You should start a new section when posting on another user's page, BTW. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I made a section per your request. About this, what is your problem ? You and that other editor need to check your attitudes. Your brain didnt think hmm I guess she read the link? Goodness ! No I have not seen The Thing. Should I add it to my netflix account?69.138.165.244 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It might scare you too much; it's pretty "hairy". Good luck - you've learned diffs and refs in record time. A "blood test" may be in order somewhere down the line, however. Happy editing! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Doc to Doc ;-)

Thank you Thank you for heads up and for being generally wonderful. Thought you should know thatSRQ actually started as a sock puppet on May 2, 2010 on the Margaret Clark page. I think she was testing the waters.You may want to add this to report.Gratefully and CHEERS! DocOfSoc (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! I'm surprised at the transparency of it, and there are other IP's I've missed for sure. Feel free to add the IP to the report and add a comment; this is quite probably the most obvious case of socking I've ever seen. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually there were eight IP's when I stopped counting. I honestly don't know how to add such a volume and will takes notes if you would please do so. Thanks! DocOfSoc (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DocOfSoc has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Good lord! Eight more IP's (at least)? I'll contemplate this while I'm munching on my scrumptious cookie! Thanks, DocOfSoc! Doc9871 (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! This is a contemplation cupcake, well deserved! DocOfSoc (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! While certain characteristic phrases of SRQ weren't mentioned (like "wasting bandwidth" or "Good grief!"), the language is just waaaay too familiar. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

DocOfSoc says that SRQ has admitted to socking on an outside site. I have asked her to put the site link up at the SPI case or on her talk page so that it can go to the case. This needs to stop before she gets too comfortable. Just my reverting her yesterday made her feel she needed to go to an account and justify her edit, what a surprise. :) If we see her editing and we are sure it's her, revert immediately is what I think we should be doing. Blocked and banned editors are allowed to be reverted on sight, I say we follow that rule just like she insists that the rules should be followed. I'm watching now too. Have a good one. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Used. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you, for the good of WP in general, good grief! Mmm-hmm... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of more IP's to add to the report, too numerous to list there:

• 70.196.248.70 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.197.103.6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.197.115.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.208.9.121 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.208.79.225 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.208.118.125 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 72.122.68.20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 72.122.128.209 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 72.122.147.77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 72.122.211.252 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 97.51.18.161 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 97.51.47.3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 97.51.125.128 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 97.160.244.214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 97.161.134.217 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.216.161.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.217.56.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.218.37.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Will there be more? Probably. More tags to give out; yay! Doc9871 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

DocOfSoc has given you a Guinness! Beer promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Bold and Beautiful you are! Edit me anytime & TY! DocOfSoc (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Doc to DocI just found the notation where Equaczion said he wished I would be more specific about the identical edits. Someone should have told ME LOL. I know them, but I wll have to find them. As you are the linky expert here is one for starters:

"Not only the Huff Post, but The Advocate, his currently out-of-print book, and everything else where he writes (other than on his own website)... a no-brainer. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 21:27, 20 May 2010 70.196.19.181 (talk) (16,033 bytes) (fixed wording in opening and removed reference to authoring book since it is now out of print) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

Also, the exact same request from Seaphoto to SRQ as he made to sockpuppet because of her usual pattern of edits:It is much easier to follow changes when editors make one edit rather than a series of successive edits. Please don't take this as a criticism, and it is not aimed at any one editor, just a request to use the preview function as much as possible during one editing session. Thanks!SeaphotoTalk 06:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Yeah...unfortunately, I'm guilty of doing that more than I would like. Even when I use the preview fuunction, oftentimes I will look at what was just done and it just doesn't look quite right - forcing me to re-edit what I just edited. I appreciate the constructive criticism and reminder, however. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

More to follow. Shalom DocOfSoc (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

She states this is the first time editing this article. And then she states in very familiar rhetoric that the article should be locked *again*! How would she know that if she was was not prevaricating about her previous experience as SRQ?

"This isn't my first time editing Wikipedia, just my first time editing this article.. For the good of the article and Wikipedia, maybe it is time for this article to be :locked again." 70.197.159.65 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Does this need to be linkyfied. You have free reign ;-) I did post it on admin pageDocOfSoc (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I provided the diffs to "locking" earlier in the report; but your re-iteration of the ludicrous claims by the "IPs" cannot be ignored, and is great to see in the comments there. She "outed" herself: plain and simple. The report has moved down the line, and will hopefully get clerk attention soon. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure that William Forsythe was deftly rolled up in crescent dough and popped right in the oven. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I love "pigs in blankets"! Yummy! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

They are poppin' fresh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(Btw, I was pretty pleased with my response up there.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Poppin’ Fresh! I owe my robust physique to your tubes of triple-bleached goo!" (Giggle giggle) ;> Doc9871 (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

		The ambiguous template of infinite regression
		Your barnstar, and the sentiment therein, was so appreciated that I felt like giving you a barnstar in return for giving me a barnstar. But then it occurred to me that doing that might imperil everything; we could get caught in an infinite loop; you would feel obliged to barnstar me back for barnstarring you for barnstarring me, and I would feel probably feel beholden if I didn't return that favor, and so on down a road of repetitive madness and bleeding fingers, so instead I decided to give you this:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You're the best, Fuhghettaboutit! Thanks, man! :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, your barnstar was really nice. Stop by any time, and thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I love this barnstar and the comments made. I had a good laugh so thank you for that! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please checkout the Ryan Seacrest article. I spent several hours reorganizing the article, only to have it reverted. Input please. Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time rearranging and categorizing. Categories were removed and a timeline format was reinserted. I have not seen an article set up with a time line. Is this usual? would like to know what ya'll think of my changes as I am planning on changing them back if you agree and this is my first attempt at a total reorganization. The "Personal Life" change is her style. Later... Have a great weekend! Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)DocOfSoc (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, DocOfSoc! I see your suspicions here were hopefully settled: I personally am not convinced it's her in this case. Doesn't mean it isn't, but the evidence just isn't conclusive enough (unlike the Karel and Margaret situation). Keep your eyes peeled, however; with her self-professed deep "caring" about WP, we all know she'll turn up from time to time. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you self-updating your Aunt Fanny? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't get the damn thing to self-update! I have to keep entering the stuff manually. Annoying... Doc9871 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit count doesn't auto-update. The box just "auto-updates" to change to the appropriate award (based on the edit count that you type in, and your time registered). Right now the software doesn't provide any way for templates to automatically determine your edit count. Someone recently tried to get a bot approved to do that, but got shouted down. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh... Makes more sense now. Thanks, E! Doc9871 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied to you at Wildhartlivie's page; I noticed someone else edited there just after me, so wanted to make sure you didn't miss it. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:49, 1 Jun 2010 (UTC)

Dude! Bickle? A-6 Intruder? Dillinger? She's picking up where she left off... Doc9871 (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about Sabra2, add that to the report then. I would do it myself but the fact is I don't know SRQ's editing style too well. The added evidence would be better described by you. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:07, 1 Jun 2010 (UTC)

I think this edit summary is very telling. Second actual article edit, yet reverting back to before POV was added back in? How would they know (unless they've been "watching" it for some time)? This is gonna take a few... Doc9871 (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe - thanks ;> Doc9871 (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion ^(talk) 07:46, 1 Jun 2010 (UTC)

Hi there to both of you. :) Well since this all is getting very confusing and detailed but yet not detailed I've decided to see if we can get some help with all of this. I have asked 2/0 if he knows anyone to look at the SPI case and/or if he has any wisdom for us. :) 2\0 is a very thoughtful editor/administrator who tries to help when he can. I thought he might know a checkuser or have some other ideas that we have not thought of. I figured it can't hurt to bring this to the attentions of an admimistrator. It's really a shame that Sarek returned his tools because he knows the history of all this so well that he would be able to get to the bottom of things. Oh well, hopefully someone will finally do a check and block all the socks that are in this one users drawer. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, FYI, Luke and I are conversing on my talk page here. Feel free to add anything. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)