User talk:TJRC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!


RE: Grace Park[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TJRC. You have new messages at Foxj's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

foxj 02:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism on Felicia Day[edit]

Who died and put you in charge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to your vandalism at Felicia Day and my removal of it. I'm not in charge, but I will continue to remove vandalism such as this, and so will any other editor who notes it. TJRC (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actors & actresses[edit]

Thank you for putting me right on Hailee Steinfeld‎‎ and leading me to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_30#Actresses
Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 10:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Seeing "actress" rather than "actor" irks me a little bit, as I am guessing it does you; and I don't think I really agree with that CFD outcome, but that's how it went. TJRC (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes it does— actress conjures up images of "ladies of the night", which is why the majority of our stars of stage and screen abhor the appellation. I missed that CFD, and I am rather surprised at its outcome –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Teresa Stanek Rea[edit]

You're welcome. Thanks for creating the article! David Kappos didn't stay in office for long... --Edcolins (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edmund G Brown Jr[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TJRC. You have new messages at TucsonDavid's talk page.
Message added 19:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TJRC. You have new messages at TucsonDavid's talk page.
Message added 19:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oh, btw are you any good with scripts? TucsonDavidU.S.A. 19:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Not in the Wikipedia context; sorry. TJRC (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Angela Cartwright page[edit]


I ordinarily do make the appropriate comments, but I got a little puzzled and confused. An entry I had made (and check on occasionally) in the "External Links" section had disappeared, and when I went to put it back in, I discovered it had been not exactly removed, but a new kind of entry, "Authority Control," was somehow making it not visible. All I did was re-arrange the entries so that both this "Authority Control" entry and my own (to an Angela Cartwright related site) were showing up correctly. Though I admit it did take a couple of times, and I did a bit of poking around to satisfy myself that this "Authority Control" was at least nominally relevant and legit. (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I recognized it as a good-faith edit, and made sure I reverted noting that ("Reverted good faith edits by"). The link you added was still visible even with the AC template in place; it was just after the AC box (which, you're right; it should not be; the AC template should be after all the ELs). If you look at [1], you'll see your link after the AC box. It's generally a good idea when removing something like this to indicate in the edit summary why you're doing so. It makes it look less like vandalism (which I never assumed anyway) and makes your good-faith more clear.
Also, I hate to say it, but the link you added, Penny Robinson Fan Club is not an appropriate External Link under Wikipedia guidelines; see WP:FANSITE, item #11. TJRC (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


Hello TJRC, Eduemoni↑talk↓ has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment[edit]

Hey TJRC; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice attention to detail.[edit]

It is a bit redundant to have those links when the TOC covers them. Thanks for your hard work. --☥NEO (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Hogan incapacity?[edit]

From what I could find out concerning the Thomas Hogan Incapacity (See Article "Administrative Office of the United States Courts") his incapacity lasted but 5 days, and it was a scriveners error that led me down the road of misinformed and misinformation. For this I humbly apologize.

Birdymckee (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)BirdymcKee [Thomas R. McKee]

File:Francis Harrington Glidden.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: There are no details in the original, so I didn't make any up.

Thanks: Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]

Thanks for catching the additional vandalism on this page. I reverted vandalism but did not see that there was further vandalism from a previous IP user. That led to my restoration of that vandalism. It is something I usually look at but it is good to be reminded that it is important. Donner60 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I've done that myself. I probably only noticed because I was going to revert the original vandalism, and in between the time I pulled my watchlist and went to revert, the two new vandalisms, and your revert of them, had occurred. So it was a bit more prominent for me. TJRC (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleting a comment, but not the whole topic[edit]

Thanks for deleting my comment in a Whitespace programming language talk page, but not the whole topic? Why was my comment not valid, but topic was? Somebody stated that the programming language has no purpose (which it does not), and I agreed. As for discussing the topic, a lot of wikipedia articles discuss the topic in the talk pages, because it is not appropriate to do discussion in the regular page. This serves two purposes. One, a person can learn from the discussions. And two, the discussions in the long run help to make articles better. Maybe you agree or maybe you disagree. But as for me, as a user of Wikipedia, the best part of wikipedia are the discussions of topics on the talk pages, because it can point a person in directions which the main article cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message[edit]

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia! Anotherpioneer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad to. Sorry for welcoming and then "unwelcoming" you, but I was looking at your user page rather than your talk page when I was thinking you had not yet been welcomed. I removed my welcome only to keep from cluttering your talk page, not because I thought better of it! TJRC (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Spam links[edit]

This is Harry Ray. I'm not sure why you thought I was putting spam on Wikipedia. These are a legitimate additions to the page that help add valuable information. Can you please cite a part of Wikipedia's guidelines that specifically mark my links as spam? I really would like to know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry B. Ray (talkcontribs) 13:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Earl Warren[edit]

As a member of a Moose Lodge, specifically Simi Valley Women of the Moose Chapter 1959, I find it VERY informative to know that a former Cheif Justice was not only a member, but a Pilgrim Degree of Merit holder, but thank you for your "correction". KLB24.199.22.218 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and I'm sure you won't put it back without including a source. TJRC (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing Question[edit]

I'd like to thank you for the message you sent me about my edits to the John Garamendi page. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and was simply not aware of what to do with non-working links. If I cannot repair the link or find a replacement for it then what should I do? I have come across links that do not work and seem to have been placed, with the authors knowledge that the link was not working, simply to make false information seem legitimate. In that case, it seems to me that the citation should be deleted because it is being falsely represented in order to back up biased information. This is actually what I thought the case was on the John Garamendi page, and that is why I deleted the link. (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, the best thing to do is to try to find a replacement (often on the same web site, which may have been reorganized; or using the Wayback Machine), but you're ahead of me there. If you can't do that, though, the best thing to do is mark it with a {{dead link}} template. This serves pretty much the same function as the {{cn}} template you used, but preserves the reference. This will give others a starting point to try to address it (I've sometimes been unable to find a replacement; but someone with better searching skills than I have has often followed up and found one); and it also documents that a reference once supported the statement (assuming it's not a fake reference, as you suggest). For example, this cite says that it was checked on November 2010, so that puts a stake in the ground that the source once supported the statement (assuming good faith).
Faked references for false information are another issue, though. For those, I would suggest opening a subject on the article's talk page, and include why you think the information is wrong and the reference falsified. For anything that's controversial or particularly suspect, the information itself should be removed, not just asked for a cite.
I just checked the Wayback Machine and found an archive of the page, and have just added that the cite, unless is not a reliable source. TJRC (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
(update) I just changed it again to use a live link I found at Roll Call, which is clearly a reliable source. And it seems that is published by Roll Call, so there's no reason to question its reliability; but still, better to have a live source than a dead link + archive. TJRC (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that wasn't a test.[edit]

That article is really out of date. I don't know how to format the 'problems with an article' box, so I just wrote it out hoping some mod would format it. (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any bot that does that; but you can put {{Update}} at the top, and it will probably have the effect you want. However, it's not apparent from looking at it what's out of date about it, so it would be a very good idea to post a note on the talk page at Talk:Duct tape occlusion therapy setting out what you think makes it out-of-date. An unexplained tag will probably (and should) get removed unless the problem it is pointing out is clear from the face of the article. TJRC (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


I know a children's book isn't a good source. I didn't put the quote there, just the reference. Is an unsourced quote any better? See my entry on talk page. WQUlrich (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather have it unsourced with a call to fix it than have an unreliable source sitting there masquerading as a RS. The Mary Pope Osborne books are very entertaining (my six-year-old and I read them together), but are pretty far from reliable. I know you didn't add it; the editor who added it is a new editor whose only posts have been about MPO. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I just didn't want you to think that a 63 year old man without grandchildren was going around reading children's books. They put people in The Home for things like that. Face-wink.svgWQUlrich (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TJRC. You have new messages at Talk:List of states and territories of the United States.
Message added 07:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TBrandley (TCB) 07:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Brenda Venus[edit]

I replaced the deletion tag on Brenda Venus because it was removed when another user "blanked" the entire page. I do not see what your issues are about this tag. I posted this article on a page marked "Articles for deletion" but I didn't know the proper format and there were no instructions. It would have been much simpler if this unnecessary, unsourced article could have just been automatically deleted after 7 days as no one has responded to comments on the Talk Page. (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed that the prod was reverted by Mirakado; not the blanking that was a few edits later.
If you want to do an AFD, there are instructions at WP:Guide to deletion (If you were editing WP:AFD, there's a pointer to the Guide at the top.)
Wikipedia has a few levels for deletion. The one you tried, PROD ("proposed deletion"), is basically an assertion that no one could reasonably believe this article should be retained; once someone rebuts that, as Mirakado did, PROD is not available any longer. You cannot reinstate a PROD or re-PROD anytime later.
AFD ("Articles for Deletion") is another approach, where there may be a difference of opinion on whether the article should be kept. The proposal there is debated for a week or longer, and a decision on deletion/retention made based on the consensus that emerges.
However, the sourecdness of an article is not usually a basis for deletion. The prime consideration is whether the subject is notable. If the subject is notable but the article is poorly sourced, the fix is to improve the sources, not to delete the article.
Venus was pretty famous in her day, so I think the article would probably pass AFD pretty handily, but you're welcome to give it a shot. TJRC (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Copyright status of work by the U.S. government". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 22:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ditto at AN/I. Perhaps an admin can help you see that it's not constructive to again demand an answer to a question when the question has been answered and you have DELETED THE ANSWER. --Elvey (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Ditto at AN/I. AGAIN. What part of "Hello! There is a AN/I notice you may have interest in" do you not understand?--Elvey (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I take a response to a comment about a July 29 AN/I that has been archived to be a comment to a July 29 AN/I that has been archived. TJRC (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I discussion[edit]

Hi there, you may have missed my request in this thread for you to state what admin action you would like to see (if any). If you could reply on that thread, it would be greatly appreciated. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been over 24 hours since I made this request for you to respond at AN/I. It may be that you have been busy or thought better of pursuing that thread, but if you do want to respond could I ask that you do so within 24 hours from the datestamp of this post? If we don't hear from you at AN/I I'll close the thread there. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your useful recent edit on Pleasantville was deleted, are you aware[edit]

Earlier in August you had made a useful edit on Pleasantville which someone has deleted, are you aware? (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed the little red dot on my screen indicating I'd been mentioned (in the "undo" edit summary), so I saw it. I just brought it up on the Talk:Pleasantville (film)#Hershman death and lawsuit, seeking opinions beyond my own and that of TheOldJacobite. TJRC (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TJRC. You have new messages at Elvey's talk page.
Message added 17:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Elvey (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


well about klimperei add in pictures at an exhibition it was just factual information so i think you act as a little stalinist ashole in the wikipedialand, do what you want, helle goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klimperei (talkcontribs) 09:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. If you're not going to discuss things, then don't don't revert; to do do is to edit war. Specifically: I edited, adding the comment,

Per TJRC's TP suggestion that we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law."

I edited per your suggestion. And yet: Your response was (diff):

Reverted to revision 569514616 by TJRC: Revert to the version approved by two editors; Elvey is the lone wolf here. (TW)

A reminder: WP:!VOTE says, "[!VOTE] serves as a cute little reminder that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important." Should I not take you on your word when you suggested we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law" - - then what?

I'm at a loss as to how to deal with this intransigence. --Elvey (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Elvey (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring[edit]

As a result of this intransigence, there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring.

--Elvey (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Elvey (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to drive the point home, because you keep accusing me of not notifying you of DRs that I had notified you of, and had done so in a timely manner, here on your talk page:

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Hello TJRC. You are encouraged to respond at WP:AN3#User:TJRC reported by User:Elvey (Result: ). It appears to be a long-running two person edit war, where neither side is behaving well. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to you but they are not yet being taken. If you have an idea for solving this, please indicate that in your response. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Calculus made easy - inappropriate external link removal[edit]

Information icon However, please do not remove dead links simply because a link is not working, as you did to Calculus Made Easy. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Thank you. Seriously, you didn't know this? You need to read Wikipedia:DEADREF before editing further. Edit: Actually, everything is right there in the Template:Uw-deadlink warning's well-written text. Afterward, please let us know: do you understand why I reverted your edit to Calculus Made Easy? Elvey (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Elvey, thanks for this revert. When I deleted it, the link was inoperative, but it is indeed working now.
But you are misapplying Wikipedia:DEADREF, which applies to references, and not to External liks sections, as here. The applicable guide you want to look at is Wikipedia:DEADREF: "Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer."
But anyway, it's moot, as the link is working now, so thanks for re-adding it. Now, just knock off the attitude, okay? TJRC (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought maybe I did and you didn't need to read Wikipedia:DEADREF before editing further, but then I realized that you are misquoting it. It says no such thing. What you needed to read is right there in the Template:Uw-deadlink warning's well-written text. (Now in bold. )I didn't misapply Wikipedia:DEADREF. What does it actually say? "[All d]ead [external] links should be repaired or replaced if possible." Why do you feel the need to attack and falsely accuse all the time? A live substitute link could be found; you should have found and added it, instead of the harmful edit you did. If you did something wrong (and you did, irrespective of whether the link is working now or not) and you can't see or admit it, you're likely to repeat it. That's the situation here, so the issue isn't moot. Perhaps others reading this will see this, even if you don't.
I asked you recently: "Shall we take a look at the policies and concerns noted at the AN/I and each make an effort to only say what we can that's conciliatory in response, as a first step forward? toward peaceful, constructive editing?" Perhaps if you responded, perhaps if you did so, you'd be a better editor. --Elvey (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Your invitation to WP:FIGHT is declined. TJRC (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I asked, "Shall we take a look at the policies and concerns noted at the AN/I and each make an effort to only say what we can that's conciliatory in response, as a first step forward? toward peaceful, constructive editing?" Perhaps if you responded, perhaps if you did so, you'd be a better editor." And your response is to accuse me of inviting you to fight. Wow, just wow. BTW, did you realize you quoted a sentence that's actually in a how-to, rather than from a policy or the guideline you claimed it was from? I just did. --Elvey (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to fight is still declined. TJRC (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Your invitation to WP:FIGHT is declined. My olive branch remains extended. Your notice of intent to attack upon your return has been noted. --Elvey (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Example: diff and I've seen lots more. Elvey (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This invitation to fight is also declined. TJRC (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for the friendly and reasoned article deletion, will take that under advisement :) BashfulSimian (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Conflict of property laws[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Conflict of property laws has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is ultimately a piece of original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yuja Wang discography[edit]


I'm about to upload the french wikipedia about the last CD of Yuja Wang, and I've read somewhere that on this CD, there is Prokofiev tocatta as a bonus track. But I don't have the CD yet, and I haven't found an "official" source like the site of DG. Can you help ? Thanks, Zandr4[Kupopo ?] 01:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition, as I see you have listed the recording of Prokoviev 3 with Abaddo, you may want to add the recording with Kurt Masur of Mendelssohn first piano concerto in Verbier ! Zandr4[Kupopo ?] 01:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Chief Wahoo‎[edit]

Actually, MOS:QUOTE says:

trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment)

and I've been using that rule but putting a sic is also fine so it's all good. Aisteco (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Trademark Policy Discussion[edit]


I noticed that you've contributed to the trademark article on Wikipedia. I wanted to reach out to you because the Wikimedia Foundation legal team has just released a draft trademark policy for consultation with the Wikimedia community. The purpose of the new draft is to facilitate permissive use of the Wikimedia trademarks for the community while preserving protection of the marks.

I thought that you may have an interesting perspective to add to this discussion, given your interest in trademark law. I would like to personally invite you to review the new draft and contribute any comments you may have. We plan to keep the discussion open for two months and incorporate the feedback into the final trademark policy. We hope this new version of the policy will make it easier for community members to use the logos to encourage Wikipedia editing.


DRenaud (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads up, I am new to contributing to wikipedia and wasn't aware of all the guidelines. Will do so in future.

SongsignSongsign (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

references for Pepusch, Clerambault , Alessandro Scarlatti and William Croft[edit]

I disagree that these references are not appropriate for an Encyclopedia, because they are strictly relevant to the subject they offer additional information on the subject they provide images of example pages from selected works of the subject.

Furthermore the entry for Pepusch had been there some time without your objecting - I did not enter it, I merely updated the URL.

I can understand that the mention of Green Man Press is not essential nor strictly relating to the subject, and suggest that you let the references stand, but omit this mention.Cedriclee (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

See the discussion at WT:WikiProject Classical music#Copyright, WP:COI and WP:UNDUE issue. TJRC (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Brian Hoyer[edit]

I had season tickets during the Brian Hoyer years at Michigan State. He was announced every game as born from North Olmsted, OH. It also says North Olmsted on his MSU Profile as well as his Cleveland Browns Profile. The NFL is wrong as he was not born in Lakewood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Two reliable sources say Lakewood; if you have a reliable source that says otherwise, please start a discussion on the talk page. TJRC (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, two of those do support you (the other two don't mention birthplace). Let's bring up a discussion on the talk page. My personal inclination is to believe the Plain Dealer, the only source that distinguishes between birth place and residence, but let's get a consensus. TJRC (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that the Cleveland Browns and New England Patriots websites both said he's born in North Olmsted right? Not to mention all the articles you see about him are out of North Olmsted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Brian Hoyer. I mention both the Browns and Patriots sites; neither gives a birthplace, only a hometown. TJRC (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Governor of California[edit]

Alas, it's just a stub. I'm not sure how to link to it, so I just repeated the prior reference to the law library position. But here's the jstor page; for some reason the google link worked yesterday, doesn't today, but is the top hit. Says it's a stub, tho. Thanks for looking into this! (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I found the same article, in full, at [2] yesterday. And I see that there was a start on an article on the case itself. I may flesh this out a bit. TJRC (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! It's something curious that you hear on news and may even learn in school, but there's not alot about this sort of minutia on the web, and it really changes the dynamics of why things are done. (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link[edit]

Thanks for the WP:ELDUP link at the 2014 State of the Union Address article. It seemed helpful to be an EL as well as a reference, but I wasn't aware of the guideline that allowed it. I always appreciate a good explanatory edit summary like that. Best, Bahooka (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

unhide actual target[edit]

Hey, TJRC -- concerning your edit . The link had been simply "[[Factory farming]]", but a couple days ago I changed that to "[[Intensive animal farming|Factory farming]]" . Now, upon studying your edit, I see (in Wikipedia:NOPIPE#When_not_to_use) that it says "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects." So, how about if I change that link back to "[[Factory farming]]" ? Wideangle (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO doesn't really discuss whether a redirect should be used; but my understanding has always been that the preferred form is to use the actual article name, and if the pertinence of the linked-to article title to the subject article is not apparent, to add an explanation (that's the "brief annotation" bit). Given that the article titles are intended to be the best title for the subject matter, I think it's almost always a good idea to use that. The real principle you want to make sure you don't cross is WP:EGG, where the reader is directed to something they did not expect to be directed to; or doesn't understand why when they get to the landing page. Based on this, I nearly always like to use the actual article title. But, other than the "brief annotation" I mention above, I don't think that that's enshrined in any guideline or policy.
In this particular case, I think Intensive animal farming and its relationship to California foie gras law is pretty clear. I'd just leave it at that; I don't think any annotation is needed, and it's at least as relevant as Factory farming. TJRC (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot, TJRC! Wideangle (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply: Asperger's/Autism[edit]

Why do you worry about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter202 (talkcontribs) 17:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


"Whilst" is a perfectly good word in British English. Please would you not change this useage in the various lists of shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

But only in in British English; it is archaic in American English. Please see WP:COMMONALITY. I included a link in the edit summaries. TJRC (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
As the lists are written in British English, WP:ENGVAR applies. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I second this. Please respect WP:ENGVAR and stop removing the word from articles. Thank you. Number 57 07:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is respecting WP:ENGVAR. There's more to that guideline than its first paragraph. WP:COMMONALITY is part of WP:ENGVAR and calls for language common to all varieties of English to be used when available. "Whilst" is good British English, but archaic in American English; "while" is both good British English and good American English. Thus, under WP:ENGVAR, "while" should be used.
You won't see me making edits that "correct" British English to American English (or vice versa) such as changing "labour" to "labor". That would violate WP:ENGVAR. But changing to a word that works in both varieties is compelled by, not prohibited by, WP:ENGVAR.
Some of my edits use neither "while" nor "whilst", where there's actually a better word (e.g., when the simultaneity implied by "while/"whilst" is not present or important to the sentence -- what Fowler calls a "weak conjunction)". For those cases, a simple "and" is usually best.
Also, you'll find that I'm as likely to correct from American English to British English where that is the original language of the article, or the subject of the article has specific ties to a region that justifies that. I think I've corrected a number of Americanisms in Emerson, Lake and Palmer, for example, over the years. TJRC (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You are ignoring WP:RETAIN - "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another". Number 57 22:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
No, not at all. This is not editing to switch from one valid use of English to another; It is to switch to a use of English valid in both. That's really what that the commonality provisions of WP:ENGVAR are for: to assure the encyclopedia is maximally accessible to the widest audience. TJRC (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid it is - "whilst" and "while" are both valid words, and you are switching from one to another. Number 57 22:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at While#Whilst and the sources cited there (including the British and Canadian style guides). It may be an eye-opener for you. TJRC (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I've already seen that, and it makes no difference what a couple of style guides say - it's still perfectly acceptable British English. And please don't start an edit war. Number 57 22:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
(talk page visitor) @TJRC: Not sure if you watch WT:MOS or have been told about it, but you may want to see WT:MOS#ENGVAR violations. You are, imo, quite right. --Stfg (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools, Signavio[edit]

Hi TJRC - in response to your recent edit (Hello, I'm TJRC. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC))

It would be very much appreciated if you attempted to contact me first as all of the revisions you made were not an advertising attempt. In particular, the section you edited was the "feature" section which clearly only listed features of the software. You have now caused a great deal of work for me to reproduce that as you simply deleted it.

Also, you may have noticed the number of revisions to that article in an attempt to raise my number of "edits" so that I can upload an image to Wikipedia. It would be greatly appreciated if you returned the text on "Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools" to its previous state, and SUGGEST modifications.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketeer415 (talkcontribs) 20:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The edits certainly appear as advertising to me; you may not really recognize it, given your apparent role. Of all the edits you've made the only one that appears productive is the attempt to add a logo to Signavio although that broke formatting pretty badly, it was easy enough to correct, and I've done that.
I think the entry for Signavio in Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools is now in good shape, and see no reason to modify it further. Given your apparent WP:COI, you should forgo edits on that page, and on Signavio, and instead suggest edits on their respective talk pages. TJRC (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You clearly have not read through the entire page and edited removed comments for wikipedian uses. There are advertorial descriptions on the page that you chose not address. The features listed in the most recent revision are not advertorial, and with your removal, do not provide wikipedia readers with the correct representation of the tool. The section calls for features - not removal of features per TJRC's personal impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketeer415 (talkcontribs) 20:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Judging from [3] and [4], it's apparent that you don't have a consensus for your edits here. TJRC (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Those edits were made to appease you, so that you would stop harassing me for obviously obeying the rules, but being bullied into making and undoing revisions.
I have reported the issue, and requested to have Users TJRC and Excirial blocked from Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketeer415 (talkcontribs) 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Steven Stayner[edit]

I note that you reverted the removal of cited material. My first instinct was the same, but I checked deeper, and have started a discussion at Talk:Steven_Stayner#Removal_of_some_cited_material_about_CARY_Stayner, and i hope you will contribute. Fiddle Faddle 10:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Signavio Logo.svg[edit]

Thank you for making the changes. Am I still required to send the email to "", or is that covered after your update?
You should be good now. The file previously had no verifiable indication of any license or other permission; I changed it to clarify that its use as a logo was appropriate without requiring permission. TJRC (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for PRODding Filemail. But a paid advocate dePRODded it.

I have tagged it for speedy deletion now.

The page now starts:

"This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because — article was recently edited by the now-blocked paid User:Schmidthoff, a sockpuppet of the <> who has recently taken on a paid job to edit this article. Article was first created by a one-edit SPA who I suspect was another paid sockpuppet. Article reads like a news release. Please delete per CSD G11."

One tip: May I suggest you visit your Twinkle preferences panel and enable PROD logging and CSD logging.

If you reply, I kindly request that you move the conversation to my talk page. I shall not watchlist your talk page.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unforgettableid (talkcontribs) 19:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Thailand alpine skiers[edit]

Category:Thailand alpine skiers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Cumberland Elementary School Shooting (San Diego) [Revision][edit]

I fail to understand how your revision of my supposed correction to line 48 is correct. Please clarify.

Here is a part of the revision sentence:

"She also spoke with police negotiators, telling them those she had shot made easy targets,...."

bold emphasis mine on what I think is a clerical error.

How can this be correct? I'm not a genius, but I'm not completely without English skills, either.

It makes no sense to me. It seems to me that one of those words, either "shot" or "made", is redundant and should be removed.

Please explain.

Alpine Joy (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a common use, as in "made [themselves] easy targets", i.e. easy to strike. "Many" is not the right word here. TJRC (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see where I made my mistake. My error. Thanks for correcting me. Although I think if I was writing the sentence, I would have written:

"....telling them those she had shot had made easy targets.... I missed the first "had", and then the sentence made no sense to me. Actually, even without any "hads" at all the sentence does make sense, so My Bad all around! Oh well. For a little while there, I was so sure and up on my high horse. Thanks for your constructive help!

Alpine Joy (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that that would be an improvement and would avoid reader confusion. Why don't you go ahead and make that edit? TJRC (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok! :-)

Alpine Joy (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Halt and catch fire[edit]

I was a programmer at System Development Corporation in 1967-1969 and worked on the SAGE system from 1967 to 1968. I remember seeing a printed sheet of joke instructions for the SAGE computer, the AN/FSQ-7 (Q-7 for short), including the HCF as well as "shred tape" and "rewind card reader" and others. I recently contacted Paul Cudney, a co worker there, and asked him about it. He recalls that the author of the piece was "Q Septimus Maximus" (I.e. Q 7 the great). I have asked him if he kept a copy of it, but have not yet seen his reply. I doubt that he did for 47 years. I recall hearing at that time (1967) that the incident reportedly occurred some time previously at a SAGE site, possibly North Bay, Ontario, the test site, or perhaps even a live SAGE sector. I can't cite a source, since the only source I have is that piece of paper I saw with my own eyes 47 years ago.

The existing article attributes it to the IBM System 360, but I doubt that, since the sheet I saw contained some instructions that referred to drum storage, which was available on the Q-7 but not the 360. Both were IBM products, and the sheet may have originated with their programmers. Ronenfield (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Ronenfield (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have any kind of source that we can use to reference this, that would be great. It would be a worthy thing to add if it's supported by more than personal memory. TJRC (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

How many personal testimonies would it take to constitute a source? (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is to reply on published sources, so no amount of personal testimonies is really adequate. You can read more at WP:RS. BTW, I'm going to post something on the talk page, but the earliest published mention I can find is in a 1967 Datamation magazine. I'm sure it predated that, though. TJRC (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Find Links App[edit]

Hi! I noticed that you have listed the find links app by Edward Betts on your user space. Would you mind explaining how it works. I have tried to feed in article titles and all I get is ""searching for article xxxxxxx 0 found (7 total)"". My question is what follows after these results. Answer on my talk page. Thanks in advance. Juhuyuta (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be that the text your trying really does not appear in Wikipedia; or it does appear and is already linked. Here's one to try: put in "Sister city" and search on that. There's act article on the "sister cities" concept Twin towns and sister cities, but many articles that refer to a "sister city" do not link to it. When I try it, I get a result listing a few dozen articles. What are you searching on? TJRC (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Tony S.[edit]

I was going to revert the same addition, but I just had to go and look at the two immediate citations.. lo and behold: there it really was, in e-print! I didn't have the heart to warn the user with an "Um, really?" for that edit message they used.--☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary; thanks for catching my error. Foolishly, I saw only the first reference; in comparison mode, I missed that there was a second one. (Although with that Tarzan-like syntax of "He second youngest of 10 children," this is not exactly the LA Times' most shining moment, is it?) TJRC (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Breeze sections on wind energy software wiki page deleted[edit]

I was notified that you was the one who deleted my additions to the Wind Evergy Software page. Could you please clarify why you did this so I can fix whatever was wrong and put it back up? I don't see how the information about Breeze that I addded differs from all the other product specific information on the same page? /Fredrik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrik84larsson (talkcontribs) 08:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. It looks like your questions have already been addressed by other editors here, here, here and here, so I'll avoid piling on. If you have further questions, let me know. TJRC (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem IP[edit]

I have revoked talk page access and extended the block, as well as posted an identifying {{whois}} on the page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. TJRC (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP Law in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Law for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your 'welcome back' email[edit]

Thanks for your 'welcome back' email. I was out of commission for the better part of a year due to injuries and illness. But I am OK now. PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know you were having health issues. In that case, I'm doubly glad to see you back. TJRC (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much[edit]

Thank you for your helpful actions at First Amendment to the United States Constitution and your wise comments at Talk:First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I strongly agree with everything you've stated on the talk page.

Hopefully this won't become much of an issue with the other user attempting to add back in the lower-court stuff repeatedly.

Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for the help with creating Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing External Links[edit]


I received a message from you informing me that you had removed multiple external links from some edits I made on the pages for Phill Niblock, Sol LeWitt, Eva Hesse, Romare Bearden, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, William Wegman, Richard Tuttle, Neil Jenney, and Willem de Kooning. I have read the Wikipedia guidelines on external links and now understand my errors. However, I do not appreciate my edits being entirely removed. If the inclusion of such external links were the only issues, I or someone else could have easily removed them. I would like to know why all of my edits were completely eliminated. Thank you. (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Julia

Your edits appear to be solely for the purpose of adding links to the website, and not for the improvement of the articles being edited. I'm going to guess that you have some affiliation there, and your edits of this type represent a conflict of interest with Wikipedia objectives. You appear to be interested only in adding eternal links to publicize the Wadswork site. TJRC (talk)

Yes so I see, thank you for informing me. Is it acceptable if I include one link to the actual archive pages for the artist's MATRIX show? For example: "In 1975, Sol LeWitt presented twelve corn stalk drawings in the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art's third MATRIX exhibition." If this is not permissible, would adding this page as a reference be alright? (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Julia