User talk:DocWatson42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
On the spelling of "subgenre" (18 November 2014)
Points to consider
  1. I bet that just about any hyphened word composed of two properly spelled words will not trigger a spell checker. E.g., Firefox is just fine with both "sewage-food" and "swill-Bolshoi", probably for grammatical reasons (using a hyphen as a compound modifier).
  2. Spell checkers have a deliberately limited vocabulary, in order to limit false positives, and "subgenre" may not included in your spell checker's list, leading to a false negative.
Research completed

I checked before I started, and OneLook Dictionary Search gives four results for "sub-genre" (none of which lead to an actual, valid entry) versus twelve for "subgenre", of which:

  • nine lead to entries for that spelling in dictionaries;
  • one is Wikipedia's redirect to the "Genre" article;
  • one is the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary's entry for "sub-" (which only gives the syllabification for the word);
  • one is a 404 error for ODLIS: Online Dictionary of Library and Information Science.

Also, I checked the British side of the Oxford Dictionaries, and still came up with "subgenre" for a search for "sub-genre".

Thus I believe "subgenre" is the correct spelling.

Contents

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Law of France may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • from [[Roman Law]] known as [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]], as opposed to [[common law]]). The body of statutes and laws governing civil law and procedure are set out in the Civil Code of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
With your valuable contribution this article is good enough. Iynod Agat (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

<mystified> Okay—thank you. But which article?</mystified>—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ann Sheridan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • a Woman Could Be an Oomph Girl"], by Art Rogoff, ''[[The New York Times]]'', September 12, 1988]</ref><ref>[http://classiccinemagold.com/ann-sheridan/ann-sheridan-the-oomph-girl/ "The Oomph Girl"]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours

Weihnachtsschmuck.JPG

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Clifford Grey[edit]

Hello! I do not believe that the hyphen is an error that justifies the use of "sic". Some mainstream newspapers use it. See, for example this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And yet the Oxford Dictionaries do not, so I believe that usage to be a mistake.—DocWatson42 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Nor, for that matter, does the spelling "sub-genre" appear in any dictionary I was able to find, so whether or not it is a mistake, on close examination it appears to be one, which I strongly feel merits a "sic".—DocWatson42 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that the overuse of "sic" would be a mistake, so we must agree to disagree. Happy holidays! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear DocWatson42,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

And to you, sir or madam. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Spelling of title[edit]

We both had different names for an anime in the article Shizuku-chan. I used "Picchipichi Shizuku-chan" because an external source and other articles uses this name. I replaced "Pitchipichi Shizuku-chan" with the previous name because I cannot find reliable uses of "Pitchipichi" elsewhere. Is it correct? TheGGoose (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be. The relevant authority is the "Romanization" section of the Manual of Style/Japan-related articles.—DocWatson42 (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

questions on copy-editing[edit]

Hi, I'm a journalist with the Boston Globe interested in learning about copy-editing at Wikipedia. If you're available to talk in the next couple of days, want to email me? thanks! Brittpeterson (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doc[edit]

I'm surprised no one has done this before, but I've given your account the wp:Reviewer right. This means you can accept as well as revert edits to articles covered by wp:pending changes. Regards ϢereSpielChequers 13:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! ^_^ (I don't interact with other editors very much, so it doesn't surprise me that I haven't had such an "upgrade".)—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 18 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Portal bar changes[edit]

I do not think it's sound to refer to a 2010 talk page that doesn't mention {{portal bar}} to run a systematic move of portal bars from elsewhere on the page to the See also section. Indeed {{portal}}'s documentation recommends putting portals in another section if a See also section doesn't exist. It's bad form to create such a section for a portal bar. Also {{portal bar}}'s documentation indicates that common practice is to put the portal bar at the bottom of the page—it isn't appropriate to switch these instances systematically based on a minor, five-year old discussion. Please achieve a renewed consensus before systematically changing these articles.

Also under what guidance are you changing {{'s}} instances into {{-'}}s? The former displays better for me and the documentation would indicate that the latter was not intended to follow italics but for other use cases. czar  10:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that you are still making this {{portal bar}} change. Through BRD, I am contesting these changes. What is your rationale for creating empty See Also sections against the documentation's guidance? czar  23:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the delay in replying. I'm away this weekend, but I will try to reply in detail on Sunday or Monday.—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, I apologize for the delay in responding. To take the issues in order:
  1. I base my changes of portal templates on MOS:SEEALSO and Wikipedia talk:Portal/Archive 5#Question relating to portals, the latter of which I do not regard as minor, but the opinion of a Wikipedia administrator and the current fourth-ranking contributor. Placing portal links solely in the See also section makes much more sense than does the somewhat conflicting and contradictory instructions of {{portal}} and {{portal bar}} (though both templates' instructions also state that they may be placed in the See also section). Working from that logic, those two templates, and {{portal-inline}} (whose instructions state "Within articles, this template is meant to be placed at the bottom of the article in the See also section"), are merely different tools for the same task, to be used as appropriate to a particular article's layout. I use {{portal}} when the See also section is long enough, {{portal bar}} when either something is intruding from above (usually an image) or {{portal}} will significantly protrude below—this is more elegant than using {{portal}} in conjunction with {{-}} or {{clear}}—and {{portal-inline}} when an infobox is much longer than the text of the article, and would thus push a {{portal}} or {{portal bar}} far down the page.
  2. I use a small font, for which {{-'}} displays better than {{'s}}, especially with letters with right-handed verticals (M's, d's), from which, when they are italicized, I can hardly distinguish the apostrophe. Any extra space doesn't bother me. {{-'}} also nearly matches {{-"}}, which I have occasion to use; it's easy to use both, and not worry about other templates.
  3. The third change I made on the Titanfall article was to convert the {{Commons category-inline}} template to a {{Commons category}} template, which is in accordance with WP:LAYOUTEL, as there are other external links in the External links section.
  4. The fourth change I made on the Titanfall article was to move the {{good article}} template to after the external links. I am unaware of any mention of the placement of this type of template in the MoS (searches: "good article", "featured article"), but their instructions state "This template should be placed at the bottom of the article before defaultsort, categories and interwikis."


DocWatson42 (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
(1) I already explained why it's a weak basis to use a 2010 comment to systematically change something five years later. Consensus on the {{portal bar}} page is to remove the "See also" section line—I just haven't done it yet. The idea is that it's really ugly to have a bar by itself across the middle of a page. And for making a See also section just for a portal bar, your WP:LAYOUTEL says Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates. (2) It may display better for you, but then it displays poorly for everyone else, including the average reader. Instead of changing the wikicode, a better solution would be modifying your own browser (your solitary case) to fix the overlapping text, or if you feel the issue is more prevalent, to have a discussion about the template to make sure it displays properly for other readers at small sizes. But the answer is not modifying arbitrary articles to not use the most common template to suit your own situation. (3) I'm aware of WP:LAYOUTEL and there are not many links (there are two), so I'd prefer to keep the inline with no harm done. (4) I'm fine this. I do it myself when I can. czar  11:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hidden text added at Climate Fiction[edit]

Could you please explain this edit? Better yet, please add the explanation to the existing thread at article talk, which is

Talk:Climate_fiction#"Genre" or "theme" or "category" or "_____"?

Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. I'm afraid I meant to point to this page (the essay at the top), not my top page.—DocWatson42 (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Ach so. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notice[edit]

This is a neutral notice of a discussion at Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron#Subsection: RE: "visit" over using either the word "visit" or the phrase "go to" in a particular context. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Goliath may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Once and Again may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * 8. "The Past Is Prologue -November 9, 1999)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Film categories[edit]

Please see WP:FILMCAT. We don't order film categories in alphabetical order. When you do that, the director's name appears in the middle of the list of genres, which isn't really very helpful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that—I was unaware that was any specified systematic order of film categories. However, in that edit I was doing much more than just alphabetizing the categories—I was adding a missing comma and correcting the placement of the {{Good article}} template. May I go back and redo those edits?—DocWatson42 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up The Station nightclub fire[edit]

I'm going to wager you also read the article having seen the Reddit video post and decided to do some cleanup? If so, then great minds think alike! —f3ndot (TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP) 07:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I've just been mulling over the fire for a week or two, and finally remembered it while sitting in front of my computer, so I looked it up. I was totally unaware of the Reddit post—this is just coincidence. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Are your serious?[edit]

IMF staff estimates are legitimate estimates and no figures here are solid. Also the the 2014 estimates are made by the same source so are you judging the competence of the the 2015 estimates and trusting the ones from 2014? Orelbon (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Huh? To which article are you referring? Offhand, the only "IMF" I can recall dealing with recently is the Impossible Missions Force, not (I assume) the International Monetary Fund. Are you sure you have the correct editor?—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking back on your contributions, the only article which we both visited recently is the that of the United Kingdom, where Rob984 just reverted your edits. I think it is s/he that you want to contact, not me.—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Woops sorry I'm using my iPhone it kinda hard to see whose who 15:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orelbon (talkcontribs)

Your edit on Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet[edit]

Check the Voice cast section. Film Fan 09:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

[deep sigh] Fixed. :-/ —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
This is to recognize all of your wonderful accomplishments here at Wikipedia all of these years. Keep up all of the great work! Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
This is to recognize your mastery of technical issues that are so important to what we do here and maximize the effectiveness of our articles. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You have done so many good things here that I think you need to be commended on more than one front for all of your great work. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

<blush> ^_^ Thank you.—DocWatson42 (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!


See the list


Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh!—thank you! And the same to you!—DocWatson42 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC) ^_^

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png DocWatson42
Wishing you a joyous Christmas and a prosperous new year!
BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And the same to you and yours.—DocWatson42 (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC) ^_^

Can you contribute to the page I made?[edit]

I made a page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_mythological_or_fantastic_beings_in_contemporary_fiction It could use more contributions. Much appreciated... Tamtrible (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I have much to contribute in an "official" sense, but here's my own personal (incomplete) list of types and subtypes (which leans heavily on my experience with Dungeons & Dragons):
  • Angels
  • Devils/demons
  • Dragons
    • Western
      • Wyverns
    • Eastern
  • Elementals & quasi-elementals (dryads, etc.)
  • Fae
  • Gargoyles
  • Humanoid animals
  • Magic users
    • Clerics/priests
  • Psionics
  • Shapeshifters
    • Lycanthropes (werewolves, etc.)
  • Undead
    • Ghosts
    • Ghouls
    • Revenants
    • Vampires
      • Dhampirs/living vampires
    • Zombies
I hope that helps. —DocWatson42 (talk)
Oh, and IMHO you should use Template:Sort to properly alphabetize the table.—DocWatson42 (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed—a closing angle bracket was missing. —DocWatson42 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gerber Plumbing Fixtures[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Gerber Plumbing Fixtures requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Toddst1 (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't create the article, nor do I remember having anything to do with it. Possibly I corrected a misspelling in it at some point?—DocWatson42 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Richard M. Daley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of-motor-truck-driver-job-duties/ |publisher=Office of the Inspector General of the City of Chicago]}}</ref></blockquote>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed.—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

Hey Doc, re: your cleanup, portals are never supposed to be in an empty See Also section like that, and in fact the documentation says that it goes at the bottom of the page. Also I prefer the whitespace as it was—makes it easer to parse while editing. czar 06:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding portals (and other boxes), I generally disagree with the documentation—for one thing, the portal bar is often useful for keeping infoboxes and images from intruding into the Notes/References section in wide browser windows. Also, I find the white space to be bothersome. However, in this case what I really feel strongly about is keeping the "[sic]" and the spelling "portait" (which is in the original, much to my regret) in the journal citation.—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I can understand the frustration but those types of drive-by edits are the epitome of what the WP community discourages (whitespace changes, template changes for personal preferences opposite the documentation, and byzantine additions). I see no reason to use sic instead of just fixing the straightforward typographical error. A professional publication would not reproduce the error on virtue of its accuracy. czar 07:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, "drive-by edits" were what I was doing, since I was cleaning up misspellings from my list, plus other problems I spotted in the articles I was correcting. Adding "sic" means that I don't have to revisit an article, and reproducing a title accurately means that it can be found/a citation verified much more easily if a link dies (try to find "Abba Gordin: A potrait of a Jewish anarchist" if you spell "potrait" corretly). Note that I try to be consistent in this in general—The New York Times for New York Times, and Daily News (New York) rather than New York Daily News. However, MOS:PMC (which I just found) supports you for quotations (titles are not mentioned), and I have been making a few such corrections when the quotation is unverifiable, due either to a dead link in the citation/reference, or when the quotation has no citation.
I am also following MOS:APPENDIX in its general guidelines as to the placement of portals and other boxes. I much prefer consistency in the placement of portals, sister project links, and similar items—putting them in the same section every time—that is, barring their inclusion in infoboxes and navbars, which supersede the usual placement.—DocWatson42 (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Cancelled vs. canceled[edit]

Just for future reference, there's no need to do this in the future as both spelling are correct. One is just less used now than it used to be. Same with travelled/traveled. As long as the article is internally consistent, either spelling is acceptable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the Oxford Dictionaries Online state that "cancelled" is British-only. Per MOS:TIES, I only change the spelling in American-related articles. Since David Weber is an American author, I changed it, where I would not have for, say, Arthur C. Clarke. —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionaries Online also state that "travelled" is "chiefly British".—DocWatson42 (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
They are both now chiefly/only British, but that wasn't always the case. It's only in the last few years that American spelling has been changing to the single "l". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Clean Up: Uechi-Ryū[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up the grammar and other details! 98.227.140.14 (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

M1917 Browning machine gun damage[edit]

This edit did damage: "Vickers machine gun" -> "United States Army Ordnance Corps". Glrx (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Glrx: I apologize—I don't know why I did that, and that was not my intention (the rest of my changes I did intend). I have made the two corrections.—DocWatson42 (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Glrx (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Glrx: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

DocWatson42, I wounder why you characterized your last edit on Erich von Manstein page as "clean-up"? Are there policies or guidelines encouraging the use of one template over the other? Carlotm (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There are no such policies—I merely prefer the portal bar and individual Wikimedia sister project templates over the subject bar because they take up less vertical space, and because placing the Wikimedia sister project links directly in the External links section puts them where they are most often found.
I see. In fact the location of that page portal information (whether Portal bar or Subject bar) is quite unusual. In your clean-up you could have moved it where it's usually found, i.e. right after the last section. BTW I prefer the Subject bar for the very reason of your dislike. Portal bar looks to me too tight. But, as they say, de gustibus non est disputandum. Cheers. Carlotm (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Remarks[edit]

Why did you put "Short novel—over 100 pages in length in paperback." in remark markup on The Service of the Sword and Honorverse? If it is relevant, it should be in the article, and if not, it shouldn't be there at all. Debresser (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

To explain why I changed (The Service of the Sword, Honorverse) the style of those titles from "in quotations" to italics (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Names_and_titles), and to help make certain the style wasn't changed back. In the future I'll try to make that explanation less awkwardly.—DocWatson42 (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
You shouldn't add explanation just like that. This is absolutely a minor issue. Debresser (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Space double template[edit]

I'm curious about this edit: [1]. It's not a documented use of this template, and while I could maybe see putting it at the end of Udjat I don't see the point of putting it at the beginning of the word. On my screen it doesn't make much difference and I don't object to putting it here but I am curious. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Kendall-K1: My intention was to move ("lean in") the leading double quotation mark to better align it with the italicized Udjat (as the trailing "space double template" does at the end of the word), which I assumed it would do. However, I just checked and there seems to be no such effect, so it is apparently superfluous. Oops. <blush> I've made the correction.—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed.—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, DocWatson42. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, DocWatson42. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Many thanks DocWatson42 for your work...it's much appreciated! The Apollo Seed (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

And here I thought the red alert notice was (more) bad news. Thank you, and you're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

@Bzuk: And same back at you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

See also sections[edit]

We tend not to have these in medication article per "Avoid the See also section when possible; prefer wikilinks in the main article and navigation templates at the end."[2] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Beg pardon—this is not included in the main Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, and thus is not at all obvious.—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
True. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Would you be willing to add it to the MoS so that non-specialists like myself would know about it?—DocWatson42 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure will do :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

CUSACK cleanup![edit]

C.Cleeve (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Dear DocWatson42, Thank you for the excellent cleanup you performed on CUSACK. I was and still am a novice at recording stuff on Wiki (being rather old). I struggled to put down a few facts about my early family history when I found, a number of years ago, that there was but a two line entry. I thought, back then, that other Cusacks might possibly be interested to read a few things about the family (surprised when my grandson told me that there had been nearly 12,000 visits to the site in the past year). I have appreciated the help and guidance that you and your fellow helpers who give unstintingly to help, guide and correct we who at times don't know what we are doing - but try! I know I've been 'told off' for my non encyclopedic presentation but I'll live with that! Thanks again Doc.

@C.Cleeve: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@C.Cleeve: I'm not very involved with the social side of Wikipedia, but if you have questions about the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, especially article layout and copy editing, I'll do my best to help.—DocWatson42 (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

On Felwine Sarr[edit]

Hello Doc!

I think the page on Felwine Sarr is now good enough; who is charge of removing the templates upon it? Regards. --Morgoko (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Morgoko: I did some more clean up on it, and I think you just need to add a few more references for the end of the article—for the assertions after the current last citation ("'Afrotopia' (Philippe Rey, 2016),[6]"), especially the details of his discography and awards. After that, you can remove the cleanup template yourself—see WP:MTR. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join WP:RRTF[edit]

Trident logo.svgHello, DocWatson42! I'd like to invite you to join the Rick Riordan Task Force (formerly the "Percy Jackson" Task Force) of WikiProject Novels. We work to improve articles related to Rick Riordan and his books. Your edits to The Lost Hero were much appreciated. Even if you have no interest in our particular topic range, I would urge you to consider joining to help out with copyediting, formatting, etc. RRTF has very few editors who occupy technical roles. Please, check out our project page or contact me to learn more! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
*Please note that membership is open only to full users. If you currently edit with an IP address, please consider creating an account today! We would love to have you.

@2ReinreB2: Thank you. ^_^ I'm not interested in joining, but when I find the time I'll do a pass through the relevant articles. Copyediting and formatting are two of my strengths, and I'm looking to earn my Grandmaster Editor star. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand. We welcome any help you can give, although (as the advertiser I am) I'd still encourage you to consider listing yourself as a Supporter, especially if you wouldn't mind some of our editors asking for your advice from time to time. In particular, our page The House of Hades was recently put up for GA review, if you're looking for a potential source of copyedits. Thanks for getting back to me, and happy editing! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@2ReinreB2: I've added myself as a Supporter. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources added to Felwine Sarr[edit]

Hello Doc! I've added new sources to the Felwine Sarr page; could you go and check? If there's more to do to get the template removed, kindly let me know. Regards.

--Morgoko (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Morgoko: My apologies for taking so long to respond—I'm afraid I'm not a very good correspondent. :-( The article looks good, except that the references should be formatted (see Wikipedia:Citing sources, and in particular Wikipedia:Bare URLs) using the Citation Style 1 templates (to match the style of those already in use, per WP:CITEVAR. I personally prefer Citation Style 1 over Citation Style 2—the latter's use of commas instead of periods bugs me.). E.g., change the first new reference:

<ref>Source: [http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2016/03/24/felwine-sarr-l-afrique-n-a-personne-a-rattraper_1441781 Libération]</ref>

to:

<ref>{{Cite news |last=Calvet |first=Catherine |date=24 March 2016 |title=Felwine Sarr: «L’Afrique n’a personne à rattraper» |url=http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2016/03/24/felwine-sarr-l-afrique-n-a-personne-a-rattraper_1441781 |department=Good Morning Africa (column) |work=[[Libération]] |location=Paris |language=FR |access-date=8 May 2017}}</ref>

Which yields:

Calvet, Catherine (24 March 2016). "Felwine Sarr: «L'Afrique n'a personne à rattraper»". Good Morning Africa (column). Libération (in French). Paris. Retrieved 8 May 2017.

Note that I left the guillemets in the title since it's not in English, but that they should not be used in English-language quotations (my apologies to you if you already knew this—I mean no offense). Note also that spacing between/within the fields of the template does not matter per se, as the result displays the same whether there are no spaces or carriage returns before or after the pipe (|) characters, or spaces before or after the equals signs. E.g.,

<ref>{{Cite news | last = Calvet | first = Catherine | date = 24 March 2016 | title = Felwine Sarr: «L’Afrique n’a personne à rattraper» | url = http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2016/03/24/felwine-sarr-l-afrique-n-a-personne-a-rattraper_1441781 | department = Good Morning Africa (column) | work = [[Libération]] | location = Paris | language = FR | access-date = 8 May 2017}}</ref><poem>


<poem><ref>{{Cite news</span>
| last=Calvet
| first=Catherine
| date=24 March 2016
| title=Felwine Sarr: «L’Afrique n’a personne à rattraper»
| url=http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2016/03/24/felwine-sarr-l-afrique-n-a-personne-a-rattraper_1441781
| department=Good Morning Africa (column)
| work=[[Libération]]
| location=Paris
| language=FR
| access-date=8 May 2017}}</ref>

(et cetera) are both equivalent to the first example. However, I feel that in the horizontal usage one space before the pipes gives the best balance between use of space, readability, and line wrapping in the edit box. Similarly, the fields can be in any order, but in my opinion should be in the order in which they are displayed, to make future editing easier.—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Morgoko: A few more issues I feel I should mention. You seem to have avoided puffery, and established notability (though you should be prepared for another editor to differ on this point), but see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Also, if you are Felwine Sarr (and I am not asking), do be careful. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

Please help translate this message into your local language via meta.
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Altar server[edit]

Hi, DocWatson42, I was wondering why you removed the perrow 5 for the gallery. Imo it doesn't look nice now. Thank you for your time. Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lotje: It seemed redundant, given that the gallery is composed of five images. I've now reduced the size of the thurifer image so that it does not cause the following image to impinge on the gallery in wide browser windows (I use a width of 1600 pixels, to my knowledge not an uncommon size) and centered the gallery. How does it look to you? —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Wonderful! Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, good. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Editors?![edit]

Hi Doc, thanks for your note. Like yourself, I have tailed off lately as I was fatigued from the continual battles with editors who took a very protective stand on "their" articles. I have resolved to let the "water off a duck's back" philosophy work. I am out today on a trip but will write again when I find some time. Cheers. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bzuk: Thank you for your reply. I haven't tailed off (I've actually accelerated in recent months), but I look forward to your full response. To restate my request in a different way, I don't know how dispute resolution on Wikipedia works, and am looking for guidance. (If you know anyone else who might be helpful, I'm open to suggestions.) Though Wikipedia:Ownership of content seems to be a place to start. (Thinking about your phrase "editors who took a very protective stand on 'their' articles" reminded me of that policy, and made me look it up. ^_^) —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg kudos on having a similar username. also, thanks for all the edits- 🐦Do☭torWho42 (📼) 20:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@DoctorWho42: You're welcome. ^_^

Thermosphere.[edit]

My concern here is that people fail to grasp the concept that heat transfer is not dependent on air molecules. If it was then how would the sun warm us? Also the fact that the thermosphere is actually a hemisphere and not global might help in the understanding of what we are talking about here. There is no thermosphere 'up there' at night, as it were. This topic is clouded and made murky because it has become something of a political minefield, which is well explored in other wiki articles, but the statement that heat is not felt because the air is too thin wrong and is being used by people who can't understand the basic concept of infrared radiation and solar heat transfer. I don't relish the thought of editing anyone's work, so could you please reconsider your work here. Jamie.d (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Would you please be so kind as to elaborate a bit? What about my (sole) edit (edit history) to the thermosphere article do you find problematic? I deleted an extra carriage return, created a "See also" section, and moved the portal to it. Perhaps you are/were looking for someone else's talk page? —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
If I may...
On the topic of thermosphere and how it would feel to be in the thermosphere.
You said it would feel cold. Alexei Leonov has recently been broadcast in a BBC interview where he said it was so hot he was afraid he would die.
The reason, I suggest, for your mistake is a confusion between cold at high altitudes and that of the stratosphere. The two things are very distinct. The mountain top is :: cold because air thins and an exothermic reaction means that heat is drawn into the air and away from the environment.
Regardless, the subject is fraught with malign influences by climate change warriors and Apollo deniers like me. So please go with Leonov's account and correct your own.
Really, where did you get that?
Also you might notice that an excellent article in the subject is waiting to be edited.
I've just realised that you probably aren't the author of this but just someone who edited a spelling mistake.
If so, can you point me in the direction of the author? Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie.d (talkcontribs) 17:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Click the "view history" link at the top right of the "Thermosphere" article to see what edits have been performed on it. —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
good Mumtaz12345 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

CUSACK references[edit]

DocWatson firstly thank you for cleaning up my ‘CUSACK’ writings some time ago. I wonder if you can advise on some ‘changes’ that have been made to CUSACK ? 14th June saw deletions to the Lady Joan de Cusack section for lack of references. 26th June I returned from holiday and filled in the references. 26th June saw a request for recent ‘will’ ref (which will be ‘Cusack 1981, p34’). There also saw the removal, as ‘nonsensical’ of my reference to part of Geoffrey de Cusack’s DNA being present in Plunketts and Cusacks. Has it not been shown that the DNA of Richard 111 is present in a couple of today’s relatives? Was I wrong to make this statement? Did I not have the correct reference? Finally, the paragraph (near the beginning) about a Seigneur de Cusack in 1066 was removed, because no reference was found in the named source and it was ‘not old enough’ or ‘not recent enough’ ! I was quoting from what had appeared in Noblesse de France (published 1828) Page 3, Note 1 as follows - ‘Des l’an 1066, un seigneur de Cusac avait accompague Guillaume le Bastard, Duc de Normandie, a la conquete de l’Angleterre. (Voyez Les Historiens Anglais et Rapin de Thoyras,)’ Was it correct to have been removed ? I would be pleased to know what if I should do anything. Best Regards C.Cleeve (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@C.Cleeve: Let me deal with your points in order. First, you're welcome. ^_^ Second, the DNA mention needs two slight changes (as in: "was shared between them, however what they and the Cusacks"), and to me the mention of the inheritance seems to be irrelevant. I'm generally unfamiliar with the topic of the Cusack family (I believe I originally visited the article to check the etymology of the name, and I have a hard time not correcting any mistakes I find), so I can't comment on their relation to Richard III. A reference or two here would be good (you neglected to include one <blush> Try looking through these.).
As for the removal of the paragraph, I disagree with Agricolae—the mention does seem germane and though I am unfamiliar with L'Histoire d'Angleterre (to which you refer in the edit in question, not Noblesse de France), I don't have a problem with citing old sources. (After all, Gibbons' The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–1789) is of nearly the same era, and is still relevant.) However, a fully fleshed-out reference (author, year, title, wikilink and/or hyperlink if the work is online, ISBN, OCLC number, etc.; I like Citation Style 1, which tends to be an expanded version of APA style. See "Sources added to Felwine Sarr" above for more of my opinions on the subjects of reference and editing.) of whichever you are citing would be a good idea. You might also take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try to work out any differences with Agricolae (though I am not familiar with the process—I edit much more than I participate in the social aspects of Wikipedia). Additionally, it seems that you aren't the only one with a problem with Agricolae (see also here).
I haven't done much with genealogy, but I do know someone who has (in the British Isles, not France). If you have any short questions on the subject, I can relay them.
As a side note, it would look better if your user name was not a red link (which, in a user name, tends to be the sign of a spammer). Your user homepage doesn't have to be complex—as an example, see my German Wikipedia user page. Further, you might break up your text with double carriage returns. (I personally struggle with writing long sentences—I like them, and the ones I construct seem to make grammatical sense, but stylistically they are a bit weak, as they are possibly hard to read.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yet again for your help and advice, I'm a bit past it at over 80. But look I'm now 'blue' ! C.Cleeve (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@C.Cleeve: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A certain user, and genealogy[edit]

Hello, thanks for the message! Im on traveling mood now but will be back to You asap. Yes, there are people with certain mentality and its not easy to deal with them. I get back to You soon. Have a nice day! camdan (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, and the same to you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Portals[edit]

We tend to put these in the external links section for medical articles when a see also section does not exist. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: I'm sorry about that. You told me about that in January (see above), but I had forgotten. :( —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
No worries :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you![edit]

An image of a toast sandwich, shot from the side.jpg hope you don't mind the hat-tip to yours, truly. cheers~ 🐦Do☭torWho42 () 01:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@DoctorWho42: Thank you. [mild blush] —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Help with article edits?[edit]

Hi DocWatson42,

I noticed you'd been editing the article on MSNBC a bit and I wonder if you might be able to review a substantial revision of the article about the MSNBC president, Phil Griffin, which is currently just a stub. The revision is at Talk:Phil_Griffin

I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor, and try to adhere by the five pillars. But I am a paid consultant to NBC news, so I can't make these changes directly on the article. They have to be reviewed first by an independent editor.

I'd appreciate any help.

Best.

Ed

BC1278 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278

@BC1278: Sure, I'm willing to do that.
I've started, mostly by cleaning up the references—see my sandbox for a partial draft. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Appreciate it very much. Please let me know if I can assist in any way. Ed BC1278 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278
@BC1278: I finished the cleanup of the references (updating the links, adding missing information, and formatting them into Citation Style 1—my preference—with MMMM-DD-YYYY dates) and other, minor cleanup. IMHO the article is balanced (NPOV). However, two of statement/references combinations fail verification ("[not in citation given]"), and please note that I did not perform a thorough fact check. In particular, "The Big Show with Keith Olbermann" is vague, as it (apparently) can apply to to different things—"The Big Show" segment on ESPN Radio's The Dan Patrick Show, and the MSNBC prime-time TV series The Big Show with Keith Olbermann. Please disambiguate these and add references. —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
BTW, your user name "BC1278" just made me think "BC-1278? That's a lot of battlecruisers." ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I dismabiguated "The Big Show" and sourced "executive producer" with one new citation. The other statement in question was supported in the source -- just way down. Paragraph 20, right under the photo. Thanks for all your help here. Ed BC1278 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278
@BC1278: You're welcome. ^_^ As for "He says he never had ambitions to become an on-air reporter", I believe I looked for information in the article, but obviously I didn't find it. Perhaps you might add the relevant sentence to the reference as a quotation (" |quote="), to assist future readers. (I'm currently at home on my obsolescent computer, so I can't do so or check it myself.) I did, however, perform a bit of cleanup on the new reference (Ad Age), adding the publication's name, and reordering its and the GQ reference's fields. (I like to have the fields in the order in which the information appears, as I believe this helps other editors make sense of them more easily, as does a minimal spacing of the fields, to improve readability and line wrapping in editing mode.)—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Edit: As well as fixing a couple of typos in other references that I missed. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I changed the "on-air reporter" mention to a direct quote from the article. Thanks for your attention to detail.BC1278 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278
@BC1278: Again, you're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
You'll migrate it over to the existing article when you think it's ready? Or do you want my help? BC1278 (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278
Oh, I just assumed that you'd take it and do the migration yourself. But on thinking about it, given your position, I'll do it now. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Done. I made a few more changes—added a category or two, plus a link, and a few other, minor things (e.g., curly quotes violate the MOS, in part because of encoding problems, so I changed them to plain quotation marks). —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop...[edit]

...making the edits you describe as "Cleaned up image placement (to eliminate excess white space in wide browser windows". They are not improvements, and your log shows you spend virtually no time checking out the effects of the changes you make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I do spend a significant amount of time checked the changes before implementing them. The short time between the first and second edits to a particular article can often be explained by my noticing something I've overlooked the first time around, usually just as I've pressed the "Save changes" button. The first edit takes the time, and the second edit is often a same change. I do have to ask: what width of browser window do you you use? As I noted above, I use 1600 pixels, and I can add that the font size is not particularly large. I also include what are IMHO other constructive changes in many of those reverted edits, which I'd like to explain. However, it's very late in my day, so please let me take this up when I have more time to devote to it. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Beyond My Ken. Just because you have a certain width of browser does not mean articles have have to be written for it. Your sandwiching of text between images on the Butler article may be fine on wider browsers, but on tablets it looks woeful, with a small column of text between images. Please understand that your monitor is not the only way people will see articles. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, DocWatson42. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, DocWatson42.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Restoring sections in article[edit]

Hi,

You were nice enough to work with me to review and expand Phil Griffin, which had been a stub. Another editor has come along and removed much of the new material, returning it to a stub. The original can be found at Talk: Phil Griffin or in History, of course.

I wonder if you can take a look. There was no reason given for removing the material. It was simply removed. I have a COI here, so can't make any changes directly. We could start a discussion with the other editor on Talk if you agree that the material should not have been removed -- in my opinion, the changes take the article back to stub instead in the direction of GA, which is where I'd like it to go.

Thanks,

BC1278 (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)BC1278

@BC1278: Assuming you mean this edit, I agree with you, though there is a reason given: "COI Edit request implemented per: BC1278"; I can't find a mention of that on discussion your or Spintendo's talk pages. However, since the two of you seem to have worked together in the recent past, I would first ask Spintendo the reason for the change. (Despite my experience on Wikipedia, I've never actually been through the formal Dispute resolution process.
DocWatson42 (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

The Great White North.jpg

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Et vous et vos! ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Hello, DocWatson42.
AfC submissions
Random submission
2+ months
4,294 pending submissions
Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutral notice[edit]

There is an RfC at an article you have edited, to which you may wish to add your input: Talk:American Flagg!#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous[edit]

The motto for the Anonymous Organisation is "Expect Us" Dr Derpicorn (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Migrating interlanguage links[edit]

Since this gets somewhat off-topic for Talk:Armenian Genocide, I'll reply here: If we take Armenian Genocide as an example, you'll find an "Edit links" link at the bottom of the list of already-linked languages in the left sidebar; you can use that to add, remove or modify interlanguage links. If the article you're interested in doesn't currently have such a list of links to versions in other languages, such as Argyrotaenia atrata, the relevant link in the "Languages" section of the left sidebar becomes "Add links" instead of "Edit" but works the same way. Of course you can also edit the Wikidata item; again using the Armenian Genocide as an example, it says "Wikipedia (83 entries) edit" near the bottom, above a list of entries for the 83 editions of Wikipedia that currently are linked. Things get a little tricky if the articles in both languages already have different Wikidata items associated with them; then those items need to be merged. Huon (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice[edit]

As someone who has edited Lyndsy Fonseca, you may or may not wish to join a discussion at Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Opened discussion on Phil Griffin article[edit]

Hi Doc,

I opened up a discussion on the deletion of the extensive update to Phil Griffin which you did - Talk:Phil_Griffin#Review_of_widespread_deletions

If you weigh in, that would be great. We can see how the discussion goes. My understanding is that we wait to see if there's a consensus decision or any objection to restoring the edits. Maybe a week? Not sure what standard operating procedure is -- I suppose it depends on if there is active discussion.

Many thanks!

Best,

EdBC1278 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Another NBC News article?[edit]

Hey again,

Thanks for weighing in on Phil Griffin. There's another article issue, about the president of NBC New, Noah Oppenheim, that has an issue it would be great to get your opinion on. Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#RfC_on_inclusion_of_Matt_Lauer_content

I obviously have no idea what you'll think, but I do know we need more editors to weigh in. If you happen to have time, I'd be appreciative.

Thanks,

EdBC1278 (talk)BC1278

You're welcome. I'll try to add my two cents to that discussion, but currently I'm in the middle of upgrading to a new computer and am stuck using my phone to edit, so making large changes is tedious and difficult. :-/ (I used a library computer for the last comment.) --DocWatson42 (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice[edit]

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, though it's not intentional. :-) I just keep looking things up and habitually look for the usual mistakes and problems to fix. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Nextdoor[edit]

Hi,

I hope you've been well. I noticed you had been an editor on Nextdoor. I have written a substantial redraft of it. The explanation and link to the redraft are here: Talk:Nextdoor#Request_for_Review. There are very substantial problems with the current article. This is one of the more important social networking platforms, outside of the Facebook orbit, and the topic has more relevance than ever before this year because of the problems facing Facebook.

I have a conflict of interest here, so review by an independent editor is required. I'm not sure if you have time, of course, but you'd fit the bill! I have notified everyone on the article's Talk page of the discussion. The level of experience of recent contributors doesn't seem to be very high, as reflected in the article's Talk page.

Best.

Ed

BC1278 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Approx. to circa[edit]

Should this have circa for population numbers? I thought that was only for dates. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello? Is this thing on? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: My apologies; it is on. You are generally correct, per MOS:CIRCA and MOS:ABBREVIATIONS#Miscellaneous shortenings, as well as most of the dictionaries searched by OneLook, which lean towards or specify dates as the subject of its usage. I started using "c." because I had not (then) checked the rules and it is significantly shorter than "approx.", as well as clearer than "~". [sigh] I'll miss it. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC) q

Coroner[edit]

Hello
I notice you added an item to the Artistic depictions here, viz. Crossing Jordan's Jordan Cavanaugh MD, "a crime-solving forensic pathologist employed in the Massachusetts Office of the Chief Medical Examiner".
As I recently took out all the ME's and forensic pathologists (here) on the basis that they were something different to a coroner, I have to ask; are they (IYO) the same thing? I have (co-incidentally) just opened a discussion on that subject here, if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but given that the duties listed here are identical (the linked page is used as a reference in the article), I can't tell much difference between them, at least not in the United States, where the titles may well be conflated or equivalent. OTOH, see the links in the Further reading section I just added, and this report, which is used as another reference. Oh, and Quincy, M.E. is, despite the title, still listed in the "coroner" article, I guess because he works for the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office (now the Los Angeles County Department of Medical Examiner-Coroner). Perhaps a combined "In popular culture" article for both types, as per TVTropes? —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello again: Thanks (belately!) for replying. Yes, that nlm source probably isn't the best to show the differences in the roles. But the confusion reflected in the Artistic depictions section isn't (IMO_) helpful, so I've opened a discussion on this at the Coroner talk page, if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible disruptive editor[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Does this count as disruptive editing? The edit I made that Seokgyuhan reverted seems to me be perfectly reasonable, given that the Tavern on the Green is apparently still open and the Web site is live. Seokgyuhan's other recent edits seem to be edit warring over excessive detail. Or am I reading something that isn't there? —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your changes to the article were reasonable and so I've restored them. If you really believe there's a pattern of disruptive editing from that editor, collect diffs and take the matter to WP:ANI. For future reference: as a general rule, it's best to discuss questionable reversions with the reverting party before asking for input from uninvolved editors. 78.28.54.8 (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I suggest treating it as a content dispute at first, to be talked about on the Tavern's talk page or on Seokgyuhan's talk page. The recent edits do seem to be lacking in good edit summaries. It seems odd that an editor who has been around this long would suddenly go rogue. If you can't get a response, and the pattern of troubling edits continues, that's the time to take it up with admins. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@78.28.54.8 and Jmcgnh: I did think about taking this matter up with Seokgyuhan, but I wasn't certain that s/he would be reasonable, given the recent pattern of edits (especially the reversions to other reversions), and have not handled that many disputes (or at least feel I am still inexperienced in this field), so I am looking for for advice from wiser heads than mine. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposing new additions to Louis XIII (cognac)[edit]

I saw you were active on the Louis XIII article about the cognac. I am reaching out to get your help to update the article. I added new content along with the third-party media references in this draft. How about taking a look?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I try to get to that later tonight. —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Gap in Marxism article[edit]

Hi! What an egregious error that is! Thank you very much for pointing it out to me; I'll sort it out post haste! TheLoneDeranger (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@TheLoneDeranger: You're welcome. ^_^. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Delete Dhanlaxmi Bank the proprietor of the company and Trademark wishes that their name not be used for unofficial organizations claiming to be part of their bank. This article and page is bogus[edit]

Dhanlaxmi Bank the proprietor of the company and Trademark wishes that their name not be used for unofficial organizations claiming to be part of their bank. This article and page is bogus

Talk:Rise of Macedon --> HELLENIC KINGDOM[edit]

New WP:CONSENSUS Building. "Greek" or "Hellenic" precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talkcontribs) 04:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dragao2004: I hadn't edited the article in seventeen months, but okay. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Local authorites in London listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Local authorites in London. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Local authorites in London redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pkbwcgs: Thank you for the notice. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, DocWatson42. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, DocWatson42. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: Regarding your question of "Why?"[edit]

Well, my only problem with your edition on Tales from Topographic Oceans had to do with your renaming the References section as Citations. In this regard, both MOS:NOTES and WP:IC make the same recommendation, and I think the vast majority of articles use References as section title. But I agree with the MOS:PSEUDOHEAD part. I have added third level headers, based on what is done in other articles. If you like it this way, we'll leave it here. Otherwise, you may change it and it will likely be fine for me. Cheers.--Gorpik (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gorpik: I was referring to this:

Title: Editors may use any section title that they choose.[10] The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material.

I added "Citations" to Tales from Topographic Oceans as a sub-section heading for clarity. Otherwise it looks good to me. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
While it is true that editors may use any section title that they choose, this does not mean that we can change freely what previous editors have chosen. Otherwise, we would have never ending edit wars. I mean: the first editor chooses a name and afterwards we would need a very good reason to change it. Anyway, your final solution is completely fine for me :)--Gorpik (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Help with updating Simon N. Powell[edit]

Hey Doc, do you have a minute to take a look at my proposed changes over at Talk:Simon_N._Powell? It's not very active over there and you were a big help in the past. I improved the sourcing where I could, and trimmed down some content elsewhere. I appreciate any feedback you might have!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: My Internet access is currently limited, but I'll try to fix that tonight, or at least within the next few days. Until then, I'm limited in what I can do. :-( —DocWatson42 (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
No worries or rush! I appreciate the help whenever you get the chance.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@FacultiesIntact: I just got back the use of my desktop computer today (after three months of it being down), so I'll try to review your proposed changes soon. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Total Divas cast table.[edit]

Hey there, I was just wondering if you were able to assist me on the latest edits on the Total Divas page. There is a user who claims just because there is not a source to provide for recurring and guest characters, it should entirely be removed with all recurring cast members being reverted to guests. This, to me, is inaccurate, as they are trying to determine a cast members status based on their personal views. Whereas the difference between a recurring and guest are based on the amount of episodes they appeared in, and the amount of involvement they have with the storyline/main cast members. Also, this seems like a bold edit as every other television show on Wikipedia contains these types of tables, determining main, recurring, and guest characters, so I find it rather silly that this user is targeting this one show yet none of the others. However, any assist would be beneficial, as I am not looking for "back up" as I am open to change, but I want it to be for the right reasons and accurate representations. I do not want to engage in an edit war with them, nor cross any boundaries with Wikipedia. Even though I am aware that sources must be provided for most - if not all - edits, I feel in this case (including every other TV show on Wikipedia) they aren't necessary as the "proof is in the pudding" as so, meaning the source is out there in world as the episodes have been aired, etc. Thanks! MSMRHurricane (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Brief description listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Brief description. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Brief description redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 20:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Redirects cause problems with the short description editing gadget. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added my two cents. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi DocWatson42! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 00:06, Wednesday, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

Maude Darling Parlin[edit]

Hi DocWatson! ‎I appreciate your edits to this article; however, it is really difficult to review changes when editors do a complete overhaul. i'm not sure there is a standard, but i have encountered other editors who feel similarly. How do you feel on the matter? If this does not interrupt your workflow, please consider this in the future. Thanks, Fred (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Fred: Regarding the edit to "Maude Darling Parlin", here is the change log, which seems clear to me. Here are the changes I made:
  • Cleaned up layout by moving the "{{Improve categories}}" maintenance/dispute tag to the top of the article. (This goes against the tag's own instructions, but is in keeping with the general MOS, and with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It does not make sense to me to bury a cleanup tag at the bottom of an article when it affects the whole thing and is much less likely to be seen, especially when it's at the very bottom of the article, below the the categories to which it refers.)
  • Corrected two hyphens by changing them to en dashes.
  • Cleaned up two references. (IMHO a link to a WorldCat record should be represented as such and not as a link to the book itself. References should also be completed as fully as possible, while keeping in line with the style in which they are written. E.g., include identifying numbers, but not the ultimate owners of standalone Web sites as their publishers (identifying the owner of the Internet Movie Database as Amazon.com is unnecessary) or the locations of periodicals which already include that information in their titles.)
  • Corrected a misspelling (which is what brought me to the article in the first place).
  • Added spaces after asterisk-bullets to aid in editing the points (I find that it is easier to read an article in edit mode if there are spaces and carriage returns separating the wiki markup (e.g., in this comment), though too many of either impedes it).
  • Added spaces per MOS:CIRCA.
  • Alphabetized the categories, also to aid in editing. (I recall being told years ago that there is a specific order for them, at least for film and television categories, but I have no idea where to find it, and so alphabetical order makes the most sense to me.)
I'm generally happy to explain the reason(s) I make changes to articles.
Note that in my opinion, CS1 and CS2 (not my preference) references' fields should be formatted in the order in which they are displayed in the articles, as this makes editing them simpler. I often rearrange references to suit this preference.
Regarding large overhauls, sometimes articles need them, and sometimes only sections need editing. Sometimes only a punctuation mark needs fixing. When I'm using my phone, the wiki software limits me to editing one section at a time. On my desktop, that limitation does not exist, and it is generally easier to do the whole thing at once. Usually the only time I have difficulty figuring out what has been done in a particular edit is when it involves adding or subtracting numerous spaces, something the wiki software does not display very well. I'm trying to rack up edits to attain the next level of editorship, but I want to do it the right way, not by making a single change at a time with malice aforethought. Also, that would be tedious, and I'm not inclined to perform at a lower level than I can. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks you. I really appreciate this. I realize now i could have checked the page histories. Re:Worldcat. I must have read the ebook at school, but i'll be more careful in the future. And I didn't even realize one could alphabetize the categories. Thanks for the MOS links, i'll try to abide by them. I'm planning to work Marjorie Hill soon. Cheers and thanks again Fred (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Fred: You're welcome for all of the above. Responding gave me a chance to write out some of my preferences for the first time. As for alphabetizing categories (and other things), it's a primary reason I have MS Excel. For a bit more help, see here: User:DocWatson42/Help. Lastly, note that most editors abide by the MOS, but some ignore it (as I express above, I disagree with some of its points), often greatly. One of the two primary editors of New York City articles, as well as articles on fascism, is...no great fan of them, nor does that editor (whose username is "Beyond My Ken" without spaces) have much time for civility. Preemptory reversion of edits without explanation is a hallmark. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc![edit]

Thanks for spotting my typo in the 4th note of my piece on the film "Whaling: British Columbia Least Known and Most Romantic Industry"! I've fixed it in the public version.--Filmhunter (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Filmhunter: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nn (newsreader)[edit]

Notice

The article Nn (newsreader) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"Clarify"[edit]

Hi Doc! About this clarification request of yours: the first, regarding the net income, has already been clarified (the value inserted was wrong) but it's not updated, because as you can read here 80 millions € was referred to 2016/17, while the 2017/18 net income is 60,5 millions €; the second, regarding the pronunciation of Gabbana, is wrong too becase there's not a double "g" exactle as Dolce has not a double "d" (see here and here please) in Italian. Feel free to correct them both and to keep an eye on them, I hope my intervention was useful. Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIAMWASN AIHC (talkcontribs) 08:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@DIAMWASN AIHC: My apologies for taking so long to respond, and thank you for the links. ^_^ I've added them in references to the article, and performed other cleanup to the lead section. —

Edits to Steven A. Cohen article[edit]

Hello. I am reaching out to you because you have edited the Steven A. Cohen article. I would like help with updating the article. Please visit the article talk page to review my suggested updates. Thanks! AlexReads (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Add a redirect or new article for baseball - ‘Combination Perfect Game’[edit]

Hi,

I don’t exactly know how to do it but I searched for ‘combination perfect game’ to find out what it is and both the Wiki App and the .org site doesn’t have either a redirect or a distinct definition or clear explanation.

I found you by just poking around and since I can’t email you directly, I figured I’d try this way.

This all comes from the Tampa Bay Rays Vs. Orioles game that was almost a ‘Perfect Combination Game’ through the 9th inning - July 14, 2019.

So...since your an expert at this, maybe you can add an article or at the very least a redirect for: - Combination Perfect Game - Perfect Combination Game

Best Regards, Dave Larkins dlarkins [at] comcast [dot] net GTO3DEUCES (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@GTO3DEUCES: Thanks for the compliment. ^_^ I'm a "utility player" rather than an article creator. Anyway, you want to read the article "List of Major League Baseball perfect games'" section "Perfect games spoiled by the 27th batter", though as the hit was by the first batter in the inning it unfortunately does not qualify. Instead, I added a new subsection, "Combined near perfect games", which will hopefully be deemed worthy of being kept by other editors. I also added a section the article's Talk page, though given the lack of traffic to/verbiage on the page I don't expect many replies.
By the way, since you are new to Wikipedia, see this page: User:DocWatson42/Help and my comments in the section "Maude Darling Parlin" above (now on the linked page). Lastly, I munged your E-mail address, as leaving such lying around unredacted is a good way to attract spambots to that account. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Short descriptions on dab pages[edit]

Hi, there's no need to add short descriptions to dab pages as these are already supplied by Template:Disambiguation, which all dab pages have. This was discussed last year. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Uanfala: <facetious> "But the link's right there! My edit count!" </facetious> All right, in the future I'll resist the temptation. </sigh> —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
http://www.let.rug.nl/~gosse/termpedia2/termpedia.php?language=dutch_general&density=7&link_color=000000&termpedia_system=perl_db&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ADocWatson42
www.let.rug.nl
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-39
527319
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:HK2PNGC37QO72QNGZMK5JNANANE6PARW
<urn:uuid:b3a97c1b-7a4a-4728-90b4-cbb26e9ce345>
2019-09-23T13:37:24Z
129.125.2.101
text/html
sha1:7UGPOMLAPPXUEX2B3EHPDUPPHLOZ7QAP
<urn:uuid:b81c1160-264d-42f7-b65a-4ffc9832cfb1>
http://www.let.rug.nl/~gosse/termpedia2/termpedia.php?language=dutch_general&density=7&link_color=000000&termpedia_system=perl_db&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ADocWatson42
response
<urn:uuid:8ddd5c9f-e43c-44b4-9433-753e597809b6>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-39
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-65.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/