Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if he believes that Oswald was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy at all? Also do you know of any other researchers that hold this opinion as well. Ramsquire 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to make your acquaintance. I don't know if Wecht commented specifically on Oswald's involvement, however, I believe any serious examination of the evidence quickly demonstrates Oswald's innocence. Suggested are Summers 'Conspiracy', Walt Brown's 'Treachery in Dallas', and Henry Hurt's 'Reasonable Doubt'.

The evidence that most clearly exonerates Oswald has to do with his movements immediately following the assassination. Oswald was met by his manager and a police officer in the second floor lunchroom between 70 and 90 seconds after the shooting. According to Warren, this was enough time for Oswald to look out the window, drop the rifle charge down the stairs and arrive in the lunchroom, with a couple of seconds to spare. However, Warren either ignored or was unaware that:

1. The sniper's nest was found 'closed', in other words, the heavy boxes had been pushed back into place after the assassination.

2. Witnesses on the fifth floor testified that it was so quiet that they could hear footsteps on the floor above, yet neither saw nor heard anyone running down the stairs.

3. Two persons on the 4th floor left by the stairs 30 secs. after the shooting, but saw no one on the stairs.

4. The rifle was carefully hidden, not simply dropped.

5. The officer's originally testimony stated that Oswald was drinking a Coke from the lunchroom machine, that's more time still.

Also, Oswald was seen in the lunchroom 5-10 minutes BEFORE the motorcade was scheduled to arrive, he was not on the 6th floor then as Warren claimed. Also, Warren's explanation for how Oswald got a rifle into the building was nonsense, and it never did establish a motive. Hey, thanks for your time. :) JoeGoodfriend 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I know it gets confusing, because of the numerous replies from other editors (sometimes sarcastic and without paragraphs) but real humour is always appreciated. Your, "I’m going to stab my own brain with a curtain rod if I think about this much longer", made me laugh a lot :) Thanks. andreasegde 10:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point:

"RPJ, please stop this. Full disclosure: I believe President Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy."

Let´s not get personal about this. You say you´re new to this, but I would advise you to take a step back and look at the article, and not get involved in personal squabbles.

I think you will find (and I know that Gamaliel will not mind me saying this) that Gamaliel has extremely strong opinions about conspiracies. He thinks "they´re nuts", and he supports the Warren Commision report, but he is still a good editor and administrator.

RPJ is also for full disclosure, and he´s also a good editor. The two do not agree at all, so read the archive page. RPJ has taken a lot of criticism, which I think was heavy-handed. Because I resented the attacks I was also attacked. "Your hero - RPJ" was one, which made me feel ill. Step back and watch the fireworks, but try and remain neutral.

I´m glad that you´re working on the Kennedy pages, by the way. Have fun. andreasegde 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want to encourage you to Be Bold and contribute to the Oswald and JFK articles (and any other wikiarticles!). You're an editor like me, RPJ , andreasegde and everybody else. Don't let anyone scare you off from editing a page. Mytwocents 17:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, thanks for your comments. Let’s look at this situation objectively. I would like to see more of the facts regarding the conspiracy to kill JFK on these pages as much as you would. Now, normally, if you read a history textbook, or an encyclopedia, you’re lucky to get any information regarding any kind of conspiracy, that’s just the way mass media works. But there is some good balance in these articles.

We need to work on the sections that don’t have a good balance, such as the section on the killing of Tippit. Oswald did not kill Tippit, and it’s easy to produce facts that shows he didn’t. But this section just starts with “According to the Warren Commission report,” and has no balance. If anyone has time to work on this, please do so. I can help you with facts regarding this or any other aspects of the JFK articles. Just remember, you can get the truth past Gamaliel, if you do your homework. JoeGoodfriend 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment (sorry): Try not to mention specific names of users, because they tend to get a bit irritated by it. They know what they said, and they know why they said it. Let´s all concentrate on "The article", and then we can work together. "If you do your homework", (JoeGoodfriend) is a phrase that should be respected, and embraced. andreasegde 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joegoodfriend, I think you'll find that most disputes relating to JFK is a result of what is the proper spin to put on the source and not the content of the sources. If you have WP:RS materials by all means add it. As a side note--If you have an issue with an edit of mine, please refer directly to me by name so that I will know you are referring to me. I think editors get irritated when they get accused of vandalism, hiding information, or are told they're stupid or brainwashed, not because someone mentioned them specifically. Ramsquire 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for an Rfc [1] on the Clay Shaw page regarding the Max Holland article. Please comment. Ramsquire 17:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should add this to the Oswald page, because it needs it.

"This response (By Sbharris) on the Lee Harvey Owald talk page is frowned upon by Wikipedia: "Don´t bite the newcomers". Sbharris has been editing since November, 2005, and Joegoodfriend has been editing since March, 2006. Sbharris is no position to talk about newcomers. This is not what Wikipedia needs. Please be nice. andreasegde 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)" andreasegde 20:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this. Ramsquire sorted it out. andreasegde 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your consideration. I'm not afraid of going toe-to-toe with Sb, he can be a little mean, but I'll put my knowledge against his any time. Have a look at Sb's contribution history. Apparently, wikipedia is all he does, seven days a week. Joegoodfriend 21:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch for 3RR violation! Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Larry Craig. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.

Wikipedia does not publish "unconfirmed rumors", as your edit is headed. Please read WP:BLP carefully, before you get yourself into trouble. Crockspot 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you were warned above about the three revert rule and have now made a total of over 5 reverts in less than 12 hours on the article Larry Craig I have blocked you for 24 hours. See WP:BLP for clarification that blogs are not reliable sources, especially for articles about living persons.--MONGO 19:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated an RfC on RPJ. Please feel free to add your own comments. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mediation is currently having a severe backlog, I took the case to the Mediation Cabal.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration concerning RPJ. Feel free to add any comments you feel are necessary. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a simple problem; Editors who stand by the Warren Commision, and those who don't. It's a case of "Yes it is", and "No it isn't". The truth is that nobody knows what happened, because nobody actually saw Oswald actually fire the rifle. This is a fact, despite one or two people saying that "It looked like him". Asking for citations (when all the books written about the subject are POVs anyway) is going nowhere. RPJ is asking that all points of view are included, i.e., "let the reader decide" - which is fair.

I understand that Wikipedia is about facts, but don't forget that Bush and Blair both believed that "Weapons of mass-destruction" were in Iraq before it was invaded. Give RPJ his own page, and stop fighting. Be nice. --andreasegde 20:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom, Great Britain or British English by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 23:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• RPJ is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
• RPJ is placed on indefinite probation. He may be banned from the site for an appropriate period by any administrator if he edits in a disruptive manner.
• Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wrote the John Clem article. I wasn't sure how to clean it up after another editor added a third picture. You did a fine job, much thanks. Joegoodfriend 05:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have to admit that the Wikipedia interface is a bit clumsy for arranging images. The key point about a biography article is that the most representative picture should appear in the upper right-hand corner of the article. If you intend to improve this article further, you may wish to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Military person infobox. I personally do not bother with them, but a number of biography editors like them. Hal Jespersen 15:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No harm intended, I just figured I'd incorporate more of the language from the staff reports into the section. However, I do think it is important to state that impressions of the report were not and are not official conclusions of the HSCA, lest there is confusion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is an important distinction between the opinions of the staff reports and the Committee's conclusions. I have no objection to noting this is the paragraph. One edit war over this material was enough. Thanks. Joegoodfriend 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the supportive words. I know I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle because the status quo goons suffer so strongly from the Semmelweis reflex. However, I'd still rather fight than give up, even at my age. Thanks again. 99th Percentile (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm new to this, so forgive my ignorance on some of the ground rules. Perhaps there is a better resolution than a mass revert. I feel this article is negatively biased. What do you think? Smaller scale revisions, with time allowed for others to decide yay or nay? RJWitherby

Hi, thanks the message. A couple of suggestions.

Use the talk page first. Itemize a few things you think are biased point-of-view. See who agrees. Sign your posts on talk with 4 "~"

Yes, Make small scale revisions.

This is critical: Use fatual statements backed by citations from reliable sources. If your citations are valid, other editors will have a harder time justifying changing or reverting your new text.

Follow wikipedia's rules on reliable sources, NPOV, etc., and soon it will be your text that becomes consensus, and other editors will defend your work. Best of luck. Joegoodfriend 03:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a tough time explaining to Vidor on why his edit warring on the topic of whether the lead should state that the dictabelt evidence has been debunked, or C.I.Q is not the right way to go. He is simply going into this less accurate/more accurate argument which is IMO irrelevant. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that there was another kids show that ran longer than the Uncle Al Show. I guess I'm a little biased like that. Thank you for your info. (from Professor2789)

By an odd coincidence, I became acquainted with the hosts of both shows. I appeared on Uncle Al as a tyke in 1974. We then moved to Ames, IA where I often bumped into Betty Lou Varnum of The Magic Window at the local grocery. Go Reds! Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't by chance still have the bowtie nametag Uncle Al gave away to all the kids, do you? I never went on the show, but I always wanted one of those tags- primarily because of the '9' logo it had on it! LOL (from Professor2789)

Thanks for uploading Image:Floppyandfriends.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Charles Dean AP.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ciravolo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've come up with a good idea on the Oswald page on how to trim the overbloated New Orleans section. What I want to do is just have the section plainly state what Oswald did that summer. I'd like to treat it as though LHO were alive and BLP would cover the section. Also no quotes, a brief sentence or two mention of the Bringueir confrontation, and maybe a sentence stating that Garrison extensively investigated Oswald whereabouts during his investigation. Then we could jump cite that says "For further information regarding Oswald's Stay in New Orleans see the Trial of Clay Shaw article", where we can go a little more in depth about the alleged Ferrie Oswald connections, the assassination party with Russo, the anti-Castro Cubans, 544 Camp, etc. I'd really like your help or thoughts because contrary to what Mtracy thinks, I do want a balanced article. However, I am not going to sacrifice readability so that every little tidbit is in the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm disappointed in our new editor friend. Another editor who seems to have a lot of knowledge, yet has a cavalier attitude, takes offense immediately, and who is quickly ready to push an edit war.

Suggest that you start a new section on LHO talk proposing the above solution. I'll jump right in and second the motion, and I think pretty soon we'll have a consensus that can tag-team on needed edits. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI--There is significant evidence that "our new editor friend" is neither new or a friend. But on another note, I'll be listing the proposal on the LHO page. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a Happy 2009.--jeanne (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on finding out more info on this film thought to be lost! Lugnuts (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And nice work on adding The Spiders (film) too. Lugnuts (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, once again I have a problem with the time factor involved in Oswald's flight from the TSBD. This time it's in regards to his boarding of the city bus at 12.40 and then at 1.13 has already shot JD Tippit in Oak Cliff! How could he manage to ask for a bus transfer (after bus was stuck in traffic-HOW LONG were they stuck before he asked for the transfer?), catch a taxi, exit the taxi two blocks from his rooming house, go inside, grab his pistol and jacket, and then be at Oak Cliff at 1.13 where he allegedly killed Officer Tippit.?!!!! I agree with you that he had to have had a ride to Oak Cliff. Was the transfer found on Oswald after his arrest? What time was stamped on the transfer? Lawyers would have run riot with all of these details which the WC so blithely dismissed.--jeanne (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeanne, yes Oswald had the transfer on him when he was arrested. I have made some additional remarks on this subject today on the Lee Harvey Oswald page that I think will answer some of your questions. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But didn't the time stamped on the transfer place him on the bus when the WC had him in the taxi? Oswald just did not have the opportunity to have done so much and moved over a large territory in the space of 43 minutes. Physics do not lie.--jeanne (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the transfer. It does not have the kind of time stamp you are thinking of. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pity it didn't have the time stamped on it. That could have proved Oswald was still on the bus when the WC had him in the taxi!--jeanne (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joegoodfriend, thanks for deleting that remark directed against me on the Lee Harvey Oswald talk page. If someone has the temerity to call another person a fantacist, they shouldn't turn around and create their own fantasy as that IP did!--jeanne (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why are you deleting whole sections from this article without discussing it first on talk? Much of the text you deleted is properly sourced and has been in the article a long time. Some of it was hammered out as consensus/compromises to long-standing disputes. (And since I wrote a lot of it myself, I'm kind of fond of it :)) Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. If you don't like this entry, perhaps you should think about merging it. Anyways, the reason I had been considering a fork was because I thought the original Kennedy conspiracy article talked too much about the CIA instead of other competing theories. I am personally a fan of the LBJ-Masonic theory, which is barely mentioned in the original article. ADM (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, based upon your helpful contributions to the JFK Assassination article, I wanted to bring to your attention a new article on Jim Braden, a suspicious character in the JFK assassination who was inside the Dal-Tex Building on Dealey Plaza at the time of the murder. The article contains useful, sourced information, but is being targeted for deletion. Your help saving it would be greatly appreciated.DrippingGoss (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely on the right track. This article has LONG needed someone knowledgeable to tackle the subject of "suspects in Dealey Plaza other than Oswald," covering Dal-Tex/Braden, the tons of evidence of conspirator(s) on the grassy knoll, etc. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joe. I am finding a lot of info I'd like to add to Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories which isn't covered. And some data here that conflicts with info I have in my books (see my recent additions to Witness statistics). I will work to add valuable items as I have time. In the meantime, I hope you will put your two cents in on whether we KEEP or DELETE the Jim Braden article. There is quite a lively discussion going on, and I feel many of the editors chiming in are ill-informed. DrippingGoss (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going. Something to keep in mind: this business about what "the witnesses" has been a way for the pro-Warren crowd to make points in a weasel-word sort of way. For instance the phrase, "none of the witnesses actually on the Grassy Knoll believed that any shots came from the Grassy Knoll." Or the so-called "ear-witness" tabulation. These both refer to witnesses who testified to the Warren Commission, not all known witnesses to the assassination who have gone on record. The people that the WC cited as "witnesses" drew heavily from government people and the press in the motorcade, NOT bystanders in Dealey plaza. The motorcade witnesses could of course be counted on not to rock the boat on the WC's pre-ordained conclusions. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Joe. I will! Regarding the dubious "none of the grassy knoll witnesses heard shots from the knoll" claim in the article's footnotes, the tabulation just seems wrong. I checked out the referenced web page, and it lists at LEAST 150 witnesses. The portion of this Wikipedia article referncing that website cites a total of 96 witnesses. The Lifton book, Best Evidence, which I've cited here lists 90 total. So I'm not sure how to resolve those discrepancies here. Perhaps we should remove the data cited in footnote "5. Dealey Plaza Eyewitnesses; Earwitness Tabulation." as the number of witnesses listed on the website does not correlate with the figures posted here? (I hate removing info from Wikipedia though as it all seems valuable in some way, even if to discredit the Warren Commish supporters). Thanks again, and please do let your voice be heard on the Jim Braden DELETION debate. DrippingGoss (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider the association with MacLean not relevant? IAC-62 (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alger Hiss probably knew thousands of people. It doesn't add anything to the article to simply list them. Is there some significance to the relationship in question? Did they work together? Without any context, the text adds no value to the article. Why do you think the acquaintance is significant enough to include in the article? Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did work together. MacLean was the British liason officer to the Office that Hiss directed. Of course the fact that Hiss worked with a major league KGB agent does not automatically condemn him of anything similar. James Angleton worked with, and was a personal friend of Kim Philby. Angleton is still seen as a great CIA officer.

IAC-62 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could work it into the end of the "Accusations of espionage" section, but I'm not sure what you could say about it other than, "although the two worked together, Hiss has never been linked to MacLean's spying." Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo JoeGoodfriend. I am Rhosfawr. I saw your note to me about what sounds like an attempt to close debate on the Hiss case on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I did not keep a copy and can't remember your suggestion. I have studied the Hiss case for years and have written a book which deals with it among other things. I should make my position clear. I cannot understand why the files of the Soviet spy system should be seen as conclusive about anything. We have the trial evidence, the analysis by various researchers, the biographical data, books by Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss,etc.etc. There is a difference in quality. It seems to me that there is an anxiety among right-wing people and writers in the USA to believe Hiss guilty regardless of the facts. This shows in their question-begging, personal abuse and charges that those who do not agree with them are stupid, crypto-communists, and so on.RhosfawrRhosfawr (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Rhosfawr. I received your messge. This link is the Alger Hiss RFC. It would be great if we could get your opinion on the proposals. Thanks again. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our little debate was cut off... rightfully so... I just get so carried away...

A few quick answers to your points: Oswald's description. The bottom line is Brennan instantly reported what he saw, as for his height etc, true, he couldn't have seen enough to accurately deduce that, but he may have estimated based on what he may have seen - his torso. NONE of your witnesses initially reported what they later say they saw - NONE.

Truly - As I said, from the reconstructions, what you said is correct (75s, 90s, etc). We had this discussion already, on the "conspiracies" page, remember? To refresh... While I have seen some reconstructions of the time it took Baker to confront Oswald as short as 70 seconds, this is largely based on some of the confusion due to the questioning of where the timing starts - from the first shot (for Baker) or the last shot (for the assassin). However, as I mentioned, television cameraman Malcolm Couch shoot footage which shows Baker's motorcycle and Baker himself running towards the entrance. We know when, to within a second, of when this footage shows Baker, as it calibrates with the footage Dave Weigman who caught the presidential limousine before it reached the underpass. Far from the "15 seconds" Baker estimated it took to get in the front door and the "by 10 seconds" estimated by some conspiracy theorists, Baker is last seen in the Couch footage 18 seconds after the third shot, and it would have taken him a further 13 seconds to get to the front door at the same pace, let alone get in the door (Bugliosi, endnotes, p. 471). This adds much more time than most have supposed before Baker encountered Oswald.

You "And if it’s so easy to see or hear someone in that building, why didn’t Bonnie Ray Williams see and or hear Oswald while he was eating lunch on the 6th floor from 12-12:15? Why didn’t the people on the 5th floor report hearing someone flying down the stairs at breakneck pace, when it was so quiet they could hear the bullet shells hitting the floor above?"

But someone was up there, weren't they? Someone, if not Oswald, fired shots. YOU supplied witnesses who claimed to see two men up there - where did they go? Can't have it both ways. If Oswald was truly (ha ha) on the floor he claimed he was, SOMEONE ELSE was on the sixth and THEY had to escape. I mean, clearly, Brennan saw SOMEONE up there. What happened to him?

You said: "Bowers said, “in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light or smoke.”" That's not quite he said when questioned by the WC etc. Further, what he "saw" happened on the OTHER side of the fence - ie. on the Elm Street side. On the near side, where the alleged Grassy Knoll assassin HAD to have been, HE SAW NO ONE at the time of the assassination. You will note that when interviewed by Mark Lane, Lane conspicuously avoids asking him the direct, simple question of who he saw standing behind the fence in a position where it is thought assassins stood. That's because it is clear he had an UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW of that part of the fence and he SAW NO ONE there. You can't get around this.

Number of witnesses identifying smoke coming from the grassy knoll: 7. Name the witnesses. Some of those say that the "smoke" was from motorcycles, other from a position which couldn't reasonably be from a rifle. And others didn't report anything of the sort until much later.

Some of the witnesses on the knoll who were sure shots were coming from behind them... Joe, there was no one behind the fence because Bowers says there was no one behind the fence! And those who said that is where the shots came from didn't report shots from the TSBD. And we KNOW shots were fired from there. Dealy Plaza was an echo chamber.

Number of fake secret service agents on the knoll: At least one. (Plus two more near the SBD). That's not true. We know that other agents were there - I can name them - who may have been mistaken for SS agents. The only question is whether they self-identified themselves as SS or whether witnesses mistakenly assumed they were SS agents, or whether witnesses misunderstood the agents when they identified themselves. Canada Jack (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe. Sorry to add all this stuff to your page, but I think the Lee Bower stuff has to be underlined. The WC testimony and the interviews by Lane are somewhat unclear as to what, precisely Bower saw behind the fence during the actual assassination. For the former, it's because it's not always 100 per cent clear as to where the several individuals he speaks of are standing, exactly and what they were doing during the assassination, for the latter, Bower explicitly describes what was happening at the moment of the assassination but Lane omits this from his documentary.

In the WC testimony, it seems that Bowers is describing two men at the WEST end of the fence, i.e., by the underpass end. However, when Lane talks to him, it is clear he means the EAST end, near the pergola, near where Zapruder was standing. However, he states that the two men are obscured from his line of sight as they move in FRONT of the fence as the "caravan" as he calls it passes. In photos from the far side of Elm, we in fact see three men, two of whom are likely the ones he refers to.

But, just in case there is ANY confusion as to what, exactly, he saw behind the fence, he says this: Now I could see back or the South side [BOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired. I don';t know how more explicit one can get. Of course, Lane omitted this crucial section from his film, focussing on his "smoke or flash of light" line. What was the "smoke" or "light"? Since there was no one behind the fence, it could very well have been a reflection from the limo windshield!

Lane has been caught red-handed on several occasions misrepresenting evidence, even lying about what people have said. If he was honest about Bower's testimony - he wasn't - we'd not be debating this issue now. Canada Jack (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one will ever say Jack doesn't do his homework. And I'd like to add that you've never made an edit to an article with which I did not agree. I'm also aware that Mark Lane is a person who has a hard time always telling the truth, and that calls into question everything he's said and written. I need a break right now, but I'll think about all this soon. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have the one major film of Keaton's listed; another found by James Mason in 1955 is "The Boat". Does anyone know the list of titles that Mason discovered and had restored? He found these in Keaton's old house that he bought and remodelled.75.21.113.40 (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This is from the talk page at lost films that were rediscovered. I see you are active and knowledgeable; do you know where I can find a list of the Buster Keaton film discovery made by James Mason in 1955? Thanks!!75.21.113.40 (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam Granato is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Granato until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the same person who does the misspelling and anything else and I am not going to do a debate on here so delete this soon but I want you to see and decide on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB-TLTWAh6s

It not because I am beating you up on this, but I just think his facts are correct.

You gotta admit, whetever there was a conspiracy or not, their reactions were strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.23.173 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been intrigued by 'dark-complected man.' What's with the radio, and fist in the air? Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Bowers seems like a straight-up guy to me. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the witness heard three shots that day, the three Oswald was said to have fired.

And all the reporters said that they heard three shots, Proof Oswald acted alone right?

Maybe NOT!

these are three great research videos by Bob Harris one of the best JFK researchers in my opinion He says here that The shooters may have used a suppressor weapon and due to this, Many witnesses like Clint Hill, Charles Brehm, Mary Moorman and others, didn't hear it at all. He comes up with an amazing theory on the Single Bullet theory, he suggests that it was not planted like what many said but it may have come FROM another victim who had nothing to do with the assassination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

and in this video, he says Hill reacted to one shot at frame 285 and another that was fired just after the fatal head shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u08P2R2l5T8&feature=related

and finally

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXWC87-WOKU&list=UUejjF--PW1v2IyEo1A6US0A&index=9&feature=plcp

this time delete everything I said on here and tell me what you think.

This is the last message.

Sorry I cannot put on the names of the videos so you can know what they called. Well, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.23.173 (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect J.D. Tippit. Since you had some involvement with the J.D. Tippit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Location (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the title 'The Obama Chronicles,' Part 3: Barack Obama's Mentors not support that Davis was one of Obama's mentors? There is no doubt that there was mentor-like relationship to the man. What part of "mentor" do you dispute? Redhanker (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC) "poet Frank Marshall Davis (who would be a mentor to the teen-aged and future US president Barack Obama)^[1], "[reply]

Hi Red. Take a look at wikipedia's policies on reliable sources[2].

First of all, we need reliable sources for the Obama-Davis claim. David Fredosso claims that "Dreams From My Father" documents the relationship. Does the book in fact do this? On what pages does it do so? Also, apparently Davis is not mentioned by name in "Dreams", Fredosso is making an assumption. Do we know for a fact that Obama was talking about Davis, and Fredosso isn't just guessing? Finally Fredosso says, "Davis who was, according to one of his sympathetic biographers, a member of the Communist Party USA." Ok, which biographer? Is that biographer a reliable source?

Second, text regarding an Obama-Davis relationship may be germane to the biographical articles on either man, but it doesn't really belong in the CPUSA article. While the names of prominent CPUSA members may be included in the article, any further information about them belongs elsewhere. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joegoodfriend Please resolve content differences with CJK on the Alger Hiss talk page before reverting any more content. An RFC on the specific issues might be useful to gain more community input to the dispute. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a request for comment on the talk pages. Your thoughts are welcome. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please my response to CJK here: [3]. I would strongly suggest both of you work together on a new RFC. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alger Hiss and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

CJK (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Timeline of Sun Myung Moon, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Long term incivility from User:BrandonTR. Thank you. —Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my thoughts to the thread about Brandon. I never forget a slight. :) By the way, in case you were wondering, Joe Goodfriend is my real name. Take care and thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the quotes from BrandonTR that you posted and, if anything, he's a bigger problem than I thought. Would you be willing to sign on to an WP:RFC regarding his conduct? I hate to go to these measures, but in the absence of outside intervention I don't feel we have a choice. Gamaliel (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to contribute to an RFC. I wish I had some friends on these talk pages. You know, CanadaJack and I aren't on speaking terms any more since he repeatedly called me a liar. Oh well. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea things had gotten so bad. I've strayed away from them for the last couple of years, and every time I wandered back, BrandonTR was a good reason not to stick around. It appears he isn't the only problem, but perhaps if we resolve this big one it will go along way towards making these articles somewhere people will want to work instead of fight. Gamaliel (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this thread Jack flat-out called me a liar. I gave him a chance to back down, but he came right back again calling me a liar and part of a "dishonest" and "ludicrous" crowd. I'm not going to debate with someone who plays me like that. Thanks Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a draft of an RFC. I wanted to see if you thought the summary was appropriate and if you had any suggestions or concerns. Feel free to edit the draft and to add diffs if you wish. Gamaliel (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did a good job on the draft. I haven't been reading every thread on the assassinations page recently; a lot of the topics just haven't been interesting.

I have an idea for you. Taking another look, I see that you edited some of Brandon's comments for personal attacks. [4] I just had to see what he said, and I found this attack on you: "Just admit it. You don't want this in the article because it goes against the propaganda you are trying to promote."

So, it seems Brandon is a practically a reincarnation of our old friend RPJ! Remember this? Perhaps the RPJ request for arbitration, and subsequent "workshop" (wow) will help you with some ideas about how to cope with Brandon. RPJ, like Brandon, believed that everyone else in the talk pages was involved in a vast conspiracy to promote false and misleading propaganda. Regarding the famous backyard photos of Oswald, RPJ refused to respond to the questions I raised, instead started a new thread to attack my motives and suggested that I am personally part of a conspiracy to hide key conspiracy evidence from the public. This is in contrast to Jack, who considers me part of a "dishonest" and "ludicrous" "crowd" conspiracy dedicated to SPREADING dubious conspiracy theories about the assassination. Good luck. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious--what does 072713 mean? Yopienso (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 27, 2013. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Thanks; don't know why I couldn't see that. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've posted a note to you on the Alger Hiss talk page. Please view all the links I provided and then respond appropriately. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC on an article you recently edited is being conducted at Talk:Joni_Ernst#RfC: Can material that is critical to the subject be included in the article? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joe. In Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#NPOV Train Wreck, an idea to add a list of prominent lone gunman critics near the beginning of the article has been proposed. I'm wondering if you might be willing to work on it with me. Thanks! Location (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article could use some major-league editing, and I'll try to keep an open-mind. I think there's way too much, "Jim Marrs says this." My principal concern is that the article not be rewritten along the lines, "this is all fringe, so the article should mostly be a rehash of Posner and Bugliosi." Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

um agreed. yes, exactly. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, please see Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Section regarding prominent critics. Cheers! - Location (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your replies at the entry on JFK assasination theories. I truly don't understand these folks. what are they suggesting? that we resolve the entire historical issue here? on our own? I don't understand what their suggestion actually is. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the editor who created the thread hasn't posted to TALK recently and hasn't made any edits to the article. It's not the first time I've seen an editor get mad that an article doesn't reflect their point of view, and demand other editors do a bunch of research and make a bunch of changes.

I’ve been arguing with Jack on that talk page for about 10 years. I think this recent statement he made explains a lot:

Talk:Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy#Infobox_violates_NPOV "Indeed, the level of denial from the conspiracy crowd in terms of addressing the reams of concrete evidence linking Oswald and the rifle to the crime is such that it approaches Holocaust denial. EVERY piece of incriminating evidence was planted and/or faked many of them claim. While there may be some who indeed believe that, we don't likewise insert "alleged" to the Holocaust because there are those who claim the official investigations were frauds. To deny the evidence is to deny the veracity of standard forensic techniques and therefore the conclusions of ANY criminal case."

In other words, (1) he believes Oswald acted alone, the evidence is incontrovertible, and anyone who disagrees MUST be lying or crazy, (2) to say that any of the principal witnesses were mistaken is to call them liars and part of a conspiracy to spread lies, and (3) he styles himself as the world’s greatest expert on what those questioning the official conclusions believe, despite the fact that he seems to never have read the better-regarded works on the subject.

In case you’re wondering, I personally believe that there was a second shooter in Dealey Plaza, and I agree with the Director and lead investigators of the HSCA that the “New Orleans conspiracy” is true: Oswald was working with David Ferrie and other anti-Castro Cubans and that the assassination was greenlighted by mob boss Carlos Marcello. In the article, I was the original author of the New Orleans conspiracy, other published theories, and some other stuff as well. Cheers. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hm, I agree with you. i do feel that somebody somewhere in the government might have played some role. I have a few different ideas on who and where. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it hilarious how all these guys keep inserting little colloquialisms as if to make it obvious that they are actually thinking about this, instead of simply repeating an obstinate viewpoint which has no relevance to the entry. e.g., "Hey, I was intrigued by how much the evidence clearly shows there is no validity to any alternate theories whatsoever. funny story, how if you read all the real sources, they all point to that conclusion only. funny how that is, isn't it?" that kind of thing. :-) --Sm8900 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I agree with Joe that it is relatively common for people on both sides of the issue to complain about neutrality issues with this article. My own perspective, as one who believes Oswald acted alone, is that the article does not suffer from major neutrality issues; however, I do think that the article suffers on other points. In my opinion, the primary issues is that the article in its current state is bloated and the four or five main "conspiracy theories" are lost in a jumble of details, particularly for the uninformed reader. In the example above, there is so much material regarding the idea of a New Orleans conspiracy that it is likely deserving of a stand-alone article. Fixing a topic as immense as this one is very difficult for experienced editors who are supposed to understand policies and guidelines regarding WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY, etc., and virtually impossible for drive-by newbies who seem to think it will be resolved by adding a particular detail here or there. We all need to do a better job of taking the high road by not responding to sniping or discussion that is not relevant to article improvement. - Location (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article is bloated. I'm not of a strong opinion of what needs to be trimmed first; any suggestion is welcome as far as I'm concerned. On the one hand, I admit I'm tempted to ignore the TALK discussion not relevant to article improvement, and that might be the responsible thing to do. On the other hand, that means a certain editor gets to use the TALK page as his personal blog. It's tough for a serious amateur historian like myself to be repeatedly told I'm no different from a Holocaust denier. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that discussion, I think CanadaJack was referring to what you yourself described as people who attempt to "refute the irrefutable". Obviously, the two of you differ on what is irrefutable, so the analogy was interpreted as a slight against you. Godwin's law vs. Reductio ad Hitlerum. I think that discussion demonstrates that all of us, myself included, waste a lot of time on things that don't really help improving the relevant articles. I walk on eggshells with BrandonTR and still feel that he takes everything antagonistically. Anyway, I liked your suggestion in Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Section regarding prominent critics and responded there. - Location (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my response to your edit here. I have fixed my comment. - Location (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. This particular conflict epitomizes the way the article has been going in the wrong direction for some time -- becoming a laundry list of what very persons say they "believe" about the assassination. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joegoodfriend. I just wanted to let you know that the RFC I opened in Lee Harvey Oswald was not meant to be spiteful. As I mentioned previously, I believe the New Orleans conspiracy is likely deserving of a stand-alone article and I could see a direct link to it even being placed in the LHO article. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources and neutral newspaper reports from the late 1960s and early 1970s touching on Garrison's investigation on which to build such an article, however, it seems as though articles like this tend to serve as a magnet for primary source material such as witness statements and police reports. IMO, editors are conducting a form of original research when they insert testimony and documents that haven't been discussed in reliable secondary sources. - Location (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Location, I really appreciate your reaching out. It's difficult to contribute because no one on the talk pages for the subject agrees with my point of view on the evidence except Brandon, and he hates me more than anybody. He's repeatedly condemned me as in the tank for the Warren Report (?)

A spin-off article is a good idea and I'd be glad to work on it when I can find the time. Regards, Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: In LHO, I placed a proposal for a re-write on the talk page. This is not meant to be a substitute for the a full article touching on Garrison's investigation or the New Orleans conspiracy. - Location (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After somebody else added an entry to List of rediscovered films, I decided to create List of rediscovered film footage. Metropolis is on there. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Dean is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Dean until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joegoodfriend. 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)[reply]

Hello, I recently removed the death of Isadora Duncan, 1927; from list of unusual deaths because her death is not unusual. But my edit was reverted. Even after providing satisfactory citations/sources, the death of Isadora is not being removed. What do you think further steps should be? talk page of unusual deaths Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never seen that article. Wow, it seems kind of silly. It's just trivia, and pure trivia is supposed to be excluded from Wikipedia. Anyway, I've added a 'KEEP' comment. If you think you have consensus among those commenting, add the edit. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A rather heated debate has recently developed at the John F. Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theories talk page. I was wondering if you might be available to weigh in on the issue?

Thanks! Earl of Arundel (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do Earl. FYI, Jack's repeatedly called me a liar, and I'm reluctant to get into any protracted debate with him. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's a real treat to work with, isn't he? I suspect there's a {{paid}} template missing on his talk page too. Seriously, I wouldn't worry about it too much. You've already made valuable contributions to the discussion, so even if you stepped back a bit now it wouldn't at all be a loss. Cheers, and thanks again! Earl of Arundel (talk)

Thanks. I'm the original author of a number of sections of that article. I'll be introducing "Second Oswald Theory" as soon as I can get around to it. Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I recently made some edits on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, to bring it to the state before the dispute. You will realise what i am saying once you see the history. Should there be a discussion on the talk page, i request you to take part in it. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I wanted to send you an email, but you havent enabled it. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• hi, can you suggest me some possible wordings for the latest issue? Thanks. —usernamekiran[talk] 23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joegoodfriend. 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)[reply]

I was wondering. But now I am glad to see that edited in recent past :)
By the way, you should enable the email function. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Wish I had to more to edit the JFK assassination articles. And it hard to want to get into more fights with certain editors who shall remain nameless. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joegoodfriend. 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)[reply]

The file File:Johnlclem.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Sorry I got mad at you over Alger Hiss.

CJK (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

==Alger Hiss==Thank you for defending my rep (years ago) 24.164.186.4 (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Jeffkisseloff 24.164.186.4 (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]