Jump to content

User talk:TJRC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deadhenry (talk | contribs) at 00:22, 26 October 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Busy4

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 and topic subscriptions 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!

TheSmokingGun.com

Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!--otherlleft 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New image

I think you may be interested that I've added a new image to Crucifixion in art. What happens next, we'll see. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I noticed that ImmortalYawn got blocked, so maybe there will be a little bit less drama about it. I still think the screenshot from Sailor Moon was the most appropriate one, seeing as the text was actually describing the director's decision to include crucifixion in that anime. But we got shouted down by the rabble on that one. Good luck here. This whole incident has made me significantly withdraw from Wikipedia. I've done a few edits here and there, but I'm no longer planning to really work on anything any longer. TJRC (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the compliment. Was surprisingly easy to whip up, did it mostly as an excuse to fiddle with SVGs a bit. I imagine it would be quite possible to do maps of the ratification of other amendments as well, but not sure they'd be as interesting as that of the 27th amendment. SnowFire (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Burn, baby, burn

Not looking for an edit war over this, so I'll let it go. I just wonder, do you disagree only really contentious points should be fact tagged? AFAIK, it's not in doubt aluminum will burn, especially in hi-02 environments. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, as far as I know, it's not in doubt, either. I remember the Exocets in the Falklands war. But it's not a matter of what we know to be true; it needs to be verifiable, i.e., with a cite. The flammability of aluminum is not common knowledge like the flammability of wood is. My general sense is that, if there's a reader who has expressed sufficient skepticism about a particular point that they've marked the article with a cite request, the better response it to provide the cite than to delete the request. TJRC (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A valid point. I guess I've been on the other end of fact tags for things that are only in doubt by people who know nothing about the subject, & I'm not sure cites for things like who commanded the attack on Pearl Harbor (to take an obvious example) are really where we want to go, but where I have a feeling we'll end up. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of deleted page

Restored and moved there: User:TJRC/Melvin T. Brunetti/OfficialObituary. Does it help? (Did I get your request right?) --Edcolins (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Food, Inc.

Sorry for the bad edit on the Food, Inc. Talk page! I hadn't caught that the anti-modernist category had been added somewhere along the line, and I agree that that category was inappropriate. And thanks, too, for assuming "food-faith" editing! (You got me laughing!) - Tim1965 (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could take credit for cleverness on the "food faith" edit summary; but it was a fortuitous typographical error. It made me chuckle when I saw it, too. TJRC (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Julliard

Hello TJRC,

To answer your question, I was planning to write an article concerning Éditions Julliard, because it was the publishing house of Françoise Sagan and Jean d'Ormesson.

Greetings,

(RaF (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]


Yuja Wang

Mystery Recording. Her debut album was with Deutsche Grammophone. At the age of 8, she hadn't even started her formal training. Additionally, Yuja does not even acknowledge the mystery album. Furthermore, nobody can find the mystery album. I challenge you to find it.BellsFromSeychelles (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There, please revert my change back and feel free to state that I was right and you were defending something wrong. Muahahaha.BellsFromSeychelles (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Zengar Zombolt has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. DaiZengarSmite evil 23:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a a misuse. It was a reference to your edit here. I will construe your removal of the warning in line with WP:REMOVED; specifically, The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history. TJRC (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Sorry

I am sorry for that, I was not aware that I restored vandalism, I am sorry that you had to take time out of your day to fix my mistake. --Clarince63 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trout writer

"Trout the writer," as in WP:TROUT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about Dongling

I undid your modifications about Dongling vibration. The original page which was created by me only contained basic company profiles. If people think it is Advertisment and simply delete it, it is fine. Those later added "reference" is cheap propaganda stuff that has little value as reference. It is paid "news". The writers did not even bother to make it sound like news instead of propaganda.

blackmoth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmoth09 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I am so sorry for my edits about foot roasting. I thought the article needed more promotion and some embellishment. However, clearly some of my edits could be seen as unconstructive and therefore I understand why you reverted them. Sorry for the damage I have caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.73.63 (talk), 129.67.73.72 (talk); 11:53, February 23, 2010

List of taekwondo grandmasters

Hello TJRC, after what seems to be a phase of people complaining about martial arts articles in general, or about me in particular (I was accused of vandalising an article, amongst other things), your note came as a pleasant surprise. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Thanks

Thanks for the cite on the Ellison reference to Koenig. It was important to me to have that touch in the article. Best, Abrazame (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. I didn't do much more than type the quote into Google Books and summarize into cite format. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Heparin

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Heparin/GA1. It appears that large parts of the article are copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thanks for reverting the Vandalism on my user talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I must have edited your talk page not too long ago, so it was still in my watch list. I often look at IP edits of any page for obvious vandalism, and revert when found. TJRC (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Barnstar

Thanks - I always to try to encourage new editors as I were one once (inexperienced and afraid) as well!--Mike Cline (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gourmandises

Why did you change name of the article? See for example Seul (album) and Seul (song). James Michael 1 (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page and user page! Any idea what this person was up to (Was it just vandalism or they really thought that they were helping) --Clarince63 (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was vandalism. He hit a few other pages, I think, too. TJRC (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trademarkia.com

Hi, I noticed today that back on 14 October 2009 you cleaned up several Trademarkia edits. You may be interested in the discusson (now two weeks old) at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Rabhyanker.2C_company_trademarkia.com. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Request

Thanks, I was just on the way to fixing that deletion request. I realized my mistake. Xe7al (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Panorama-village-logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Panorama-village-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

BCIA page move

I really appreciate your moving this page. 01:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredricshaffer (talk • contribs)

No problem. In a similar situation in the future, you can move the page yourself. There's a "Move" option on the tab bar of each page, after "Edit" and "View history." If your browser window is not wide enough, it may be under the down-pointing triangle. TJRC (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

AfD nomination of McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc.

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc.. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc.. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Notability explained + know of subject first-hand.

TJRC, thank you for your input. I greatly appreciate it. The article about Stephen Wozniak the actor has been greatly trimmed to express pertinent, notable information. This person starred in a well-known TV special based on a best-selling novel and starred in a greatly controversial feature film, amongst other projects. Indeed, I knew the subject briefly, though several article writers have also known their subjects in real life (which is why I have the handle "Hazmanager." I worked for the subject in 2007 and started my Wiki account then. I no longer have contact with the subject. I am a writer and also a supporter of the films and special film genres that the subject has been in."Hazmanager (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the input. You'll probably want to make your points on the afd page; no one will be looking for your comments on my talk page. TJRC (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porn Hub AFD

Hello TJRC, I've commented on your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn Hub, and was wondering if you'd have a look. You make a good point, and I'm not trying to change your mind. To be honest I don't have that much experience with the notability of websites, but I didn't know if you were aware of some of the thoughts on web rankings. if so, please feel free to disregard! Cheers, --BelovedFreak 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Augustine High School

Thanks for the heads up on this article. I should have looked at the article's history before I made my change. I would have undone the change by 80.194.231.189. It appears that most of this user's sporadic edits are unconstructive. Mgreason (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it. You made a pretty good dab page considering you hadn't seen the history; parts of it were improvements over the old page. In the end, you made it better than it was before 80.194.231.189's edit. TJRC (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Whoops, all I saw here was "Linux kernel". Thanks for the revert.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Ku

hi, since you commented on the afd maybe you would want to help here, but its fine if you dont Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Esther Ku Aisha9152 (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone

(From my talk page) The name "iPhone 4G" is inappropriate because it (probably) does not use 4G cellular technology. [1] We decided that iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS were inappropriate because it would lead to mostly duplicate information. We do have List of iPhone OS devices, but we'll need to wait until it's official. I suggest we take the content and sources and merge them into iPhone#Fourth generation prototypes, salt the page, and every other similar page we can think of. (If you're not an admin, tell me and I'll handle it.) HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since that comment, I have improved the section in the main article to include everything from the new article that I think is notable. If I have missed anything, please add it to the main article. I have deleted iphone 4g on grounds of wp:a10. Thank you for notifying me. HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
No More Rules
Baba Sundar Das
Vympel R-27
Flaming Schoolgirls
David Cay Johnston
And Now... The Runaways
Peggy Foster
U.S. Post Office and Courthouse (Mayaguez, Puerto Rico)
Glidas, Indiana
Federal Unemployment Tax Act
CatSper2
LM-700
Kent Dawson
Business Mileage Reimbursement Rate
Waitin' for the Night
South Carolina v. Baker
Queens of Noise
Devvy Kidd
Bob Jones (Texas businessman)
Cleanup
Troian Bellisario
Paratype
EnGarde Secure Linux
Merge
Soil biology
Lawyer
Volcanism of Italy
Add Sources
Devil Inside (Hikaru Utada song)
Misono
Jackson Browne
Wikify
Shar Pei
Mandela, Rajasthan
Gaddi (tribe)
Expand
Caroline Pratt
TVXQ
Jhojhu Khurd

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism paradox

Just FYI, I have commented on your self-referential-vandalism paradox at Template talk:User Vandalized. My head hurts, too. Cheers!--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Closed

It looks like someone allready closed the afd but the current article exhibits no problems in my view. Congratulations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sack tapping talkpage restoral

Thanks for the good faith comment. I don't remember wiping both sections. I knew I want to delete the one that had the WP:NPAs going on. That being said, the other one about not being noteworthy is moot too. If you review the article history, an admin reversed another editor who slapped notability and recentism tags on the article. The article is WP:RS sourced and notable because of the documented scrotum loss. In addition, the admin noted that had the article not been notable, the DYK review process would have effectively begun a deletion process. The DYK factiods on the frontpage undergo scrutiny from at least two editors, one of whom is an admin. What do you think? ----moreno oso (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agnostic on the notability of the subject and whether the article should exist. I only got pulled into it from the discussion at Talk:Roshambo; the article there (now a redirect) was frequently vandalized, for example as here. When Sack tapping came to my attention, I applied a little clean-up to it.
I would expect this would be a candidate for being merged into another article; I'm surprised that it has such specialized attention. But I don't feel strongly about it, and no target comes obviously to mind.
I probably disagree with User:Huey45's comments. I tend to be an inclusionist, and this is not coverage of a news incident. But I felt his initial comment was properly addressed to the content and existence of the article, and should be retained, regardless of my own feelings about it.
I realize you were cleaning up a gross breach of WP:CIVIL, and applaud you for it. TJRC (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for this, and for filling the Autoreviewer request. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Figured I might as well do double duty while I was already fiddling with Special:UserRights. ;)--Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

What are you doing?!

The reason for the disambiguation is because as Wikipeterproject pointed out, two countries use the same term for similar services. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? A little context, please. TJRC (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Something you may want to get rid of

Hi. If you don't need this for anything, you may want to request its deletion. Last April 20, someone recreated the hoax article in userspace, and it looks as if he probably did so by copy/pasting your preserved version of the page. (Among other things, the recreated article reflected the bot changes to the image calls on your page.) The recreation wasn't caught until I noticed it today. Deor (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. That was certainly an unintended side-effect. I've blanked it, and another amusing hoax article I'd retained. TJRC (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

LINKVIO Concerns for MMfA video clips

Hello TJRC, I noticed that you and LegitimateAndEvenCompelling are reverting each others edits back and forth concerning a potential WP:LINKVIO concern over a reference citation to copyrighted material (Fox News clips on the MMfA website) on the Harrison Schmitt article. We are in the midst of a lengthy discussion concerning contributory infringement copyright concern of a similar MMfA video clip on the Talk page of another article, Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy#COPYVIO. I am wondering if you be willing to put that matter on the Harrison Schmidt article on hold, and not revert his edit, while we resolve this issue. The discussion has been very courteous and I expect we will resolve the situation eventually as to whether or not MMfA video clips used in such fashion are permissible or impermissible in terms of LINKVIO. Thank you! Sincerely, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I explain there exactly why the Harrison Schmitt MMfA link also violates WP:RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Notifying

Notifying article creators of a speedy deletion is not required. I choose not to because the article creator has not been active on Wikipedia at all for nearly 4 years. エムエックスさん 話 02:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not required, but it's still good form. TJRC (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Bay Area

Please review the edits at the San Francico Bay Area article. What should be done next (or last) to stop the chicanery there? Regards, Norcalal (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Please see: Proposed Deletion: Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 15-17

Please see here: Wikipedia_talk:Service_awards#Proposed_Deletion:_Category:Wikipedian_Service_Award_Level_15-17 WuhWuzDat 10:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ShareVantage

Hello. I recently added an article for the company "The ShareVantage". You marked it as a possible advertisement and I do not understand why. I have looked at countless other company articles such as "Symantec" and "ShareFile", and I feel like the content is in line with those articles. I believe I used a neutral viewpoint and listed factual information. I'm new to Wikipedia and am trying to follow the rules. Can you help me understand what the problem is with my content? I would appreciate it. Coloradorocket (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Coloradorocket[reply]

I cannot find any evidence that this is a notable company. Symantec, in contrast, is highly notable, getting substantial coverage in generally published materials. See WP:GNG for Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. See also WP:COMPANY for guidelines that are specific to organizations such as companies. Most importantly, however, don't discuss it with me, make your case at the AFD page. I don't think you're breaking any rules, but a couple articles you have created don't seem to have sufficient notability to have an article. TJRC (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

concord LS

Thanks! You did a better job, much better, than I did.--S. Rich (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Take It Off

This has been discussed multiple times on different articles. WP:ORDINAL states "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers. However there are frequent exceptions to these rules." ... "# Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.
This means you must right numbers lower then 9 as nine, but if you follow that rule you cannot have 86 and nine, it must be eighty-six and nine. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've made all the rankings consistently numbered. TJRC (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They should be written was fifty not 50. Per rules stated above. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, per WP:ORDINAL, they should be listed as numbers. But I'm not going to edit that article any further. If you want to keep them spelled out, that's fine with me. I just went in to correct tweleve to twelve. As long as you're not going to "correct" that, too, I don't intend to edit further. TJRC (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuja Wang fansite

Hi,

About the link to the fansite, I first removed it from all Wp. But then I saw that there is a link to this fansite on the official website of Yuja Wang. I do not know what the rules are on Wp:en, but on Wp:fr it seems to be quite ambiguous, so I just want you to know it is an official fansite. Zandr4[Kupopo ?] 15:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Ninth Circuit Edit

Could you please explain to me the effect of your recent edit to the Ninth Circuit article? I can see the edit difference, but I don't understand technically what you did, why, or its impact on the article. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. By default, when you add a category tag to an article, it sorts on the category page under the title of the article (although that can be overridden by such techniques as using "listas", commonly used to make article names like "Raymond Burr" globally sort as "Burr, Raymond").
In this case, a plain [[Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] would cause this article to appear on the page Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under "U" for "United States Court...", the title of the article.
But the category tag takes an optional parameter that it uses to sort by. By using [[Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit| ]], it will sort as a null (or maybe it's as a blank, I'm not really sure), before every other article on the category page. This is appropriate when the article is the main article for the category. If you go to the category page here, you'll see that the main article is now listed before any other articles. Some editors prefer to use a '*' rather than the null, causing it to be first and to have a star, but it's the same idea. TJRC (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. One more question if you know. Where is this optional parameter documented?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, beats me. It's just something I picked up somewhere. TJRC (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here it is: WP:SORTKEY. TJRC (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you, you found it, not always an easy task on Wikipedia. I dunno about you, but until I started actively editing on Wikipedia, I had never seen the word eponymous (eponymous category is mentioned in the sortkey section) used much. Wikipedians LOVE the word. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd seen it, but only referring to CDs (or "albums", to old folks like me) named after their artists, like this one. Hey, look! There's an eponymous category called Category:Eponymous categories. Should it contain itself? TJRC (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

ELP

Really? Even with the rest of the criticism you don't think the blender blurb fits? U crazy dood.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Adding perfume to a skunk does not make a skunk smell any sweeter. As we've said all along the Blender piece is not criticism; it does not belong. The rest is mostly okay. It should be cleaned up a bit (I'd like to see better distinction between overall criticism of the band and of the Love Beach album; right now they're confusingly conflated), bit it's a good start. I'm about to take off on a short holiday. I'll look at it when I get back. TJRC (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I truly do not understand how this could not be considered criticism. Doesn't a skunk's smell in context make a difference? I think so. The Blender blurb further demonstrates how lowly some people thought of the band.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Just glancing at a couple of definitions for criticism and the everyday meaning of it, the Blender blurb is technically criticism.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. For all the reasons already stated on talk page, over and over and over again, it's not criticism. Go re-read it if you like, it's not worth repeating. Good for you for digging up some real criticism; the article needed it. But that doesn't justify citing a humor piece like the Blender article as though it, too, were criticism. TJRC (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All those reasons are poorly founded and poorly researched. A "humor piece?" Have you seen the authors responsible for this article? They are well respected critics. It seems as though people made up there minds and, in the face of all evidence to the contrary including wiki policy, refuse to reasonably discuss/examine the facts.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe v. Southern Software case

Hey, thanks for all the cleanup on Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.! I'm new and your fixes were really helpful.

ToastIsTasty (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Little cleanups like the ones I did are small incremental improvements. You get the credit for doing the hard work of starting the article in the first place. TJRC (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lamparello v. Falwell

Thank you for your helpful edits and tips on Lamparello v. Falwell! It really helps me to learn the best Wikipedia practices. I appreciate it! LisaFowler (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a quick question though - while the case does not directly concern Falwell's anti-homosexual statements, the factual information makes several references to Falwell's statements and position on homosexuality (and as you know, his statements motivated the gripe site in question). I attempted to link to the discussion about Falwell's anti-homosexual stance in several different ways in order to comply with best practices but all of these references were removed. May I please ask your advice on how to include this relevant information in a more natural way? I don't believe it is sufficient to refer only to the Jerry Falwell page, especially since there is a substantial section dedicated to LGBT Issues. I know sections can get renamed and removed, leading to dead wikilinks, but is there a better way to provide this reference? Thank you again! LisaFowler (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that gets done sometimes, and I don't think there's a clear standard on whether it should be. I think it's enough to link to Jerry Falwell, as is already done. A reader interested in Falwell, including his statement and positions on homosexuality, will be inclined to read that. The only times I've seen a link into a specific heading of an article was where the article being linked to was not itself being otherwise linked to. But here, we've already got the link to the Falwell article. Unfortunately, the applicable MOS here (WP:MOSLINK#Link specificity) is short on advice here, merely commenting on the technique. TJRC (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lamparello v. Falwell

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Rose Jang

Thanks for your input and advice. I learn more and more as time goes by. Its all really helpful. I very much will respect other contributors edits. I think I was confused. Although I never edited someone elses contribution I might have marked a box that said I did which I won't do anymore. Also, Rose Jang is her name and owns the trademark to this name as a musician. Will this make a difference? Thanks! Bags16float (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the links I provided on your talk page. Do not call her "Rose"; in an encyclopedic article, we use the subject's surname after the initial mention, see WP:SURNAME. A trademark claim has no impact on this. I've reverted your most recent change. TJRC (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Datalink Computer Services incident, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rivermark of Santa Clara

I've not actually been in the position to seek the banning of an IP contributor. Do you know the process so we take care of 12.48.195.73 assaults? Rivermark is apparently not the only article that has been harassed by this person. The IP was blocked in 2009 for a month. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 20:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked too closely at his history. I'm not sure these are vandalism; he seems to be of the position that "upscale" is POV and doesn't belong in the article. I disagree, in that it's reported as "upscale" outside Wikipedia, and is so cited. But I think it's more of his editorial misunderstanding (given his edit summaries) rather than malicious vandalism. TJRC (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the last vandal-like edit I just reverted today. The annon editor actually removed the term from the referenced quoted material itself. I think the redaction of an actual quote makes it clear there this is a malicious intent. At a minimum, I'd like to see this article semi-protected. Your thoughts? — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 21:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could request semi-protection at WP:RPP; my sense, though, is that Wikipedia administrators require a pretty high level of IP vandalism to semiprotect. I don't know if a few vandal edits per month will be persuasive; I've usually seen semiprotection where there's one or two such edits daily. You can give it a try, though. TJRC (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before we go through that trouble, are there another other actions that can be perused to address this annoyance? — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 07:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federal building photo help

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thank you for looking outside the box! KimChee (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Slade - Amazing Kamikaze Syndrome

In connection to the peacock problem - I fully agree that the info stepped over that boundary however I believe your last edit was unnecessary as all terms were removed i.e. ledendary. Peacock doesn't state anything wrong with explaining the meaning of a track and also quotes from interviews. I have edited again to what I believe is fair, simply explaining the tracks on the album without using promotional words.Ajsmith141 (talk) 09:45, 01 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edit did not address only the peacock issues (although it certainly did that). It also fixed broken grammar and usage issues and removed original research. The "explanations" of the tracks were all OR. TJRC (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything written was based from the official albums remastered edition booklet which all remasters were confirmed by with the band. Wording was edited to make it a fair point view so song meanings and interview pieces shouldn't be an issue. Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:12, 01 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in being an advisor about a documentary on the Panama Canal?

Hello, I noticed that you have more than ten edits on the Panama Canal article. First of all I would like to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Secondly, I am writing to ask you if you would consider participating as an advisor to a group producing a documentary about the canal and its history. If this is of interest to you please drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Psingleton (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation. However, I don't have much expertise about the Panama Canal at all. I only made a couple substantive edits, adding some information about Martyr's day and updating the record-setting toll; the majority of my edits were simple vandalism reversions. Good luck with the documentary. TJRC (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, It looks like we found a few people that can help. Thanks for getting back to me. Psingleton (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Re: Jay M. Cohen

You're most certainly welcome... and thank you for your note of appreciation! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Hi TJRC, I'm taking your concerns seriously, but the wording had been carefully chosen to indicate the unusual circumstances of his departure, in a quite factual manner. There is of course rumors and talk about the reasons etc., but all that has been left out in our reporting. On the other hand, to summarize this event in exactly the same way as less peculiar departures from the staff would be deceiving our readers. I'd also like to note that the exact same wording was used in another recent Signpost story in January, with no objections.

Besides, Signpost stories differ from regular (mainspace) Wikipedia articles in that they have a byline (i.e. someone to whom the text is attributed, and who takes responsibility for it) and a publication date, after which they should not be substantially changed until there is a pressing reason (cf. Wikipedia:Signpost/About). And frankly, while you have explained your personal reasons to prefer the other wording, you haven't made the case for such a pressing need. You would have been welcome to edit the story before publication, though, or indeed write it yourself - we can always use careful writers for "News and notes" (check the Newsroom and the resources page). In that case, you could have been included in the byline, too, and would have had more leeway to rewrite it according to your own judgement.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit it further, but I think a response is appropriate. First, "sudden" is not factual; it's opinion. Is three days "sudden"? Some would say yes, some would say no. It is clearly not "factual."
Second, whether a particular departure seems to be "sudden" is entirely subjective, and may only seem sudden due to unavailability of information to the observer. For all anyone knows, Godwin and the Foundation worked out the terms of his leaving over a period of time, and it wasn't "sudden" at all.
Third, most substantively, the use of "sudden" carries with it some implication that there is something mysterious and nefarious going on here, and that may not be the case at all. Godwin is an attorney; something may have come up which presented a conflict of interest requiring his withdrawal, for all we know. The use of "sudden" invites the reader to infer hey, something is going on here..... That's not something Signpost should be doing. Why should it?
Fourth, I'm not persuaded that bias and innuendo that would not be appropriate in an article is appropriate for Signpost, merely because it has a byline. For one thing, WP:OWN, which (unlike WP:Signpost/About) is policy, makes quite clear, "All Wikipedia content is open to being edited collaboratively." It does not make an exception for the Signpost, and Signpost cannot, via WP:Signpost/About, override Wikipedia policy and except itself from it. For another, bias and innuendo is no more appropriate by virtue of appearing under a byline than otherwise. If anything, semi-official organs like Signpost should be at least as careful as article content.
Fifth and finally, I'm not persuaded that this is absolved because the same poor judgment was used in a prior Signpost article. For one thing, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no better an argument for Signpost than it is for article space. For another, compounding bad judgment does not make it good judgment, it just makes it more bad judgment.
As I said, I'm not editing this further. It's unfortunate enough that the innuendo is there in violation of Wikipedia policy and best practices. Starting a debate about it on a more public Signpost will just amplify it.
In the unlikely event I've persuaded you, however, please feel free to revert yourself. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was factual in that it was based on an objective timespan, instead of guessing at the reasons. I get the distinct impression that you were not very familiar with the matter that was being reported. The announcement was made on October 19, the departure was on October 22, the search started in "late October"[2]. Any objective observer who compares this with customs for such changes at similar organizations (or just with other WMF staff departures - I can point you to several others reported in the Signpost if you want) will conclude that this was an unusually short timespan. FWIW, just this week a prominent law blog described the departure as "very sudden" while reporting about the new hire.
  • Your second point is speculation which is contradicted by the "late October" quote and the safe assumption that the WMF's leadership would not have purposefully delayed the search for a successor (leaving the organization without permanent counsel).
  • In your third point you argue that Signpost readers should be denied solid facts about a news item out of the vague fear that they might engage in speculation based on these facts. I agree that the Signpost itself should not engage in speculation, and that facts have to be weighed in their importance. However, in my judgement this information (the unusually short timespan) was an essential aspect of the situation - with considerable impact on the actual work of the WMF - , and I think that suppressing it with the goal of steering readers towards the conclusion that nothing unusual happened is irreconcilable with good journalism.
  • Your far-reaching interpretation of WP:OWN relies on a misquote (omitting the qualifying footnote after "All Wikipedia content") and is contradicted, for example, by long-established talk page guidelines discouraging the tampering with signed comments by other users. Both talk pages and Signpost articles differ from the mainspace content (that WP:OWN refers to) in their way of attributing content (by signatures and bylines, respectively). Like I said, I would have been happy for you to become involved before publication and to be credited by a byline if necessary (e.g. because of a disagreement), and I don't intend to "own" the Signpost's "News and notes" section at all : While for months I have been writing most of it, I purposefully refrain from assigning this beat to myself, trying to invite others to assume responsibilty for it too. I realize that the custom of "freezing" the content (except for cosmetic changes or necessry corrections) is somewhat alien to heavy wiki users, but it is due to the general needs of news reporting; you will also find it at Wikinews.
  • The remark about you being the only reader to have objected to that repeatedly used wording was just intended to give you some pause in your outrage and perhaps make you think more clearly about the differences between journalistic and encyclopedic writing. I'll probably have to admit that it failed to achieve that aim.
For the record, from all I have seen I had gotten the impression that Mike Godwin was a great, very competent GC for the WMF; I don't know of any good reason for him to leave the WMF or for the WMF to get rid of him and I won't speculate about any in the Signpost.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh

That gave me a chuckle. --David Shankbone 02:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper

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

DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

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

DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Perhaps interested

Hi, you might be interested in checking out this article that I suggested and ErrantX started. Schenecker double murders.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not in favor of articles like this in an encyclopedia, so I probably won't be working on it. My view is that this is news, not encyclopedic material, and WP:NOTNEWS. TJRC (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2010 City of Bell salary controversy

Thanks for popping in at Talk:2010 City of Bell salary controversy. FYI, user:DocOfSoc is recovering from a sudden illness and may not be entirely herself. I'm sure she does want to work collaboratively, and I've worked with her on that and other articles before productively. That particular topic is an ongoing news story, so the article is very much a work in progress. It's hard to continue updating an article while maintaining a logical structure or balance between the elements. Personally, I'm grateful that she has done so much work keeping the article up to date. The legal cases are far from settled - it may be a year before the article becomes stable. In the meantime I'm sure your help would be appreciated.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that, but I think I'll pass. I'm not up for trying to coax someone into cooperation. I can understand attitude can come with something like a sudden illness, but I'm not up to the challenge of dealing with that. In addition, the edits are coming so fast and furious that it will be difficult to engage in thoughtful editing while the ground shifts under one's feet. I think I'll just sit this one out and avoid the drama. Thanks for the word, though. TJRC (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

school websites

TJRC: I've gone through all of the law schools in California in an effort to standardize the EL descriptions for their official websites. In looking at WP:UNIGUIDE, I see that the ELs should be in English, which implies a description of the school, not just the notation "Official Website". Moreover, in looking at some of the FAs & GAs listed in UNIGUIDE, I see a variety of formats for the official website ELs. With these factors in mind, I submit that my edits are completely proper. That is, they all follow the same format (excepting the one(s) you have changed). Please give me your thoughts. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're consistent within the law schools articles that you've updated, but inconsistent with the standard used throughout Wikipedia that the {{official website}} template provides. Is there some reason you think the law school articles should be different? TJRC (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, law school articles are not different. In looking at Template:Official website I see this example (6th one down):

This tells me that adding the name of the school after the pipe | is perfectly acceptable. Moreover, other ELs have descriptive names. Why would the official template be restricted to a "Official Website" result when other non-template ELs are not so restricted? --S. Rich (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis "Red" Deutsch

I was just curious on the date of death listed, September 11, 1983. On the SSDI page, it states he died in Sept 1985 in Pompano Beach Florida. --Chorne2k (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No clue. I don't know anything about him and never edited that article. Sorry. TJRC (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

patent utils

TJRC, you asked about my patent utils. I am fine with them being distributed under the GPL 2. If you have a different license you would like as well, please ask. Note that they need to be fixed to properly handle foreign patent information and patent continuation data. Jrincayc (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City of Bell

I apologize if I sounded unreasonable but your placing of the template was upsetting. However, I do appreciate any input you may have and help in editing the article. When I said I was sick and tired I meant it literally. I have had two analphylactic episodes in the last two weeks, requiring hospitalization. I have utilized your excellent suggestions and would appreciate your input. Mea Culpa — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reported me for vandalism, why?

The headline kind of sums it up. The last page I edited was Cheshire, Connecticut. I don't think I did anything wrong there, just added a name. And I can't remember making any changes for months prior. 99.173.23.179 (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Whatever my IP address is[reply]

I don't believe I warned or reported you for vandalism. From your talk page, it looks like BabbaQ did, see [3]. Did you perhaps confuse me with him? TJRC (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.173.23.179 (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone(s) seems intent on removing related projects from the Nagios page

Hi,

I saw you were adept at re-introducing edits (using twinkle?) when related references were removed from the Nagios page. Since your edit of 00:17, 29 January 2011 three such reference have disappeared (by the 4 immediately subsequent edits.) The references were to Shinken, Icinga, and Opsview. I was wondering if A) you could restore the references, and B) whether there's anything to be done considering this would be the add/delete/restore/delete/add-th time these changes were made. (IIRC there's a 3 edit rule, although that may not be the right vocabularly.)

I'm pretty casual at Wikipedia so I figured I'd go to someone more of an expert. I tried hitting the revert button on the most recent edits that removed the references but the wiki says it's not able to cope given intervening changes.

Thanks. --kop (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Nagios. please join in and help determine a consensus. I'm fine with them staying in or staying out, whichever the consensus is. TJRC (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to the discussion. It's been a long time since I've read through all the wikipedia policy so I am not fluent in the vocabulary of the active community members and don't have policy quotes at hand. But I hope I have contributed to the discussion. Thanks. (I'll probably ignore Wikipedia for another 6 months now, again, so I hope that resolution, at whatever pace, moves forward without me.) --kop (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

I have to disagree with you reverting my edit on the IP. When an IP is writing an obviously bad faith and very immature comment it cant be considered a genuine message. Im going to leave a message to then saying I disagree with that comment.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Responding is appropriate. Deleting is not. TJRC (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City of Bell Controversy

Dear Counselor, You are correct. With the Bell article the "edits are coming so fast and furious that it will be difficult to engage in thoughtful editing while the ground shifts under one's feet." It's kinda like writing about an earthquake that is still shaking! I Live in LA so it is almost normal. My anaphylaxis and the medications that followed did not leave me a in a good place. Having now recovered and I hope to NEVER be "Mostly dead all day" (Princess Bride ;-) again. I would sincerely like to solicit more input on your suggestions that I have implemented. I am trying once more to respectfully coax you to drop by now and again. I have lessened my workload and can assure you of friendly cooperation. I really could use your fine brain. In all Sincerity, — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Oz Template

Thank you, that looks super! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conceptual Jungle

Don't know if this'll sway your argument any, but Conceptual jungle doesn't have an article, and I don't think it ever will. Does it make sense to have a Wikiproject for something that is extremely unlikely to have an article? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

constantly being harrassed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Take this to a more appropriate forum.

Hi, Babbaq keeps giving problems and is taking this personal vendetta against someone that must live in my area out on everyone. I simply changed a word on the cheshire,ct page as we do not have a mayor and he/she keeps reverting and leaving all sorts of silly messages. If this is an encyclopedia, we should have our facts straight and we most certainly do not have a mayor. Thanks for any help you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.149 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the IP has been blocked two times for harassment against me. The IP has also used other IPs to vandalize both the Cheshire, Connecticut article and the Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders article. If anything this is just one more way for the Ip to instigate vandalism on Wikipedia.Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here you can see one of many earlier attempts of vandalism and harassment against me from the IP. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please take this elsewhere. I'm not even an admin and have no desire, or authority, to try to referee a dispute between two editors. TJRC (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Conscious Daughters: 23 March 2011

why are you constantly deleting content from my bands wiki page? You have sighted possible suspicion of promtion, but then you're deleting the disography and other pertinent information. Refer to NAS and other hip hop artists pages for comparison. If you feel there is promting going on, why dont you just edit the potion you see as unfit? I am the actual artist adding and editing this page. I am the ONE person who has all of the information! What's the problem... so we can get past this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daughterspublicity (talk • contribs) 18:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should read and understand WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMOTION. You have a clear conflict of interest with Wikipedia's interest in providing a neutral point-of-view encyclopedia; your interest is to provide a promotional piece, which is inconsistent with that.
Given your conflict, and your practice of using the article for promotion, you should probably not be editing this article at all. It seems impossible for you to do so while remaining neutral.
Some of your edits are neutral, but most are not. It is not practical for another editor to go and rewrite or edit all of your contributions because you will not adhere to Wikipedia policies. Regrettably, about the only thing one can do is just revert your edits.
If you limited your edits to neutral information well-sourced to reliable sourced (read WP:RS, too) that are not affiliated with this act, mass reversion would not be required. TJRC (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Talk page cleanup

Hi! I noticed your recent cleanup of Talk:Time-domain reflectometer, and just wanted to ask you to please keep in mind the timezone offset (see here for details) when dating others' comments. It's a minor issue, of course, but times generally should be standardized to UTC to avoid confusion. Thanks! -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WikiProject Talk pages may be of interest to you. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Vandalism

Do not falsely accuse others of vandalism. Assume good faith, or you will be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.240.89 (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. As a rule, I don't remove comments from my talk page, even ones like the above, so just for posterity, here is the vandalism record for 96.55.240.89 (talk · contribs · logs · block log):
  • February 2011
    • A streak of run-of-the-mill ordinary unimaginative vandalism: [4], [5], [6], [7]
    • Article talk page nonsense: [8], [9]
    • Accusing other editors of vandalism (similar to the comment above): [10], [11]
    • Blocked for vandalism: [12]
    • Wiping his own talk page to hide the documentation of his vandalism and block: [13] Note that this is not a good-faith removal of warnings as discussed at WP:OWNTALK, as evidenced by the subsequent track record of vandalism.
  • March 2011
    • Vandalizing by adding a "globalize" template to a series of articles without regard to content: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. This at least shows some imagination, because this type of vandalism is more likely not to be noticed as vandalism.
    • More talk page vandalism: [29], [30], [31]
    • Again with the hiding the warnings and blocking: [32]
    • The spurious "warning" posted above: [33]
I don't think I'm going to lose any sleep over this accusation. TJRC (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Island Corrections Center

Hi! I understand you removed a redlink to "Neil Island Corrections Center" - Well, I created the article, inspired by the news reports that came: McNeil Island Corrections Center

Because McNeil Island was held by several prison service authorities, the article on "McNeil Island Corrections Center" could be about the Washington DOC facility in operation from the 1980s until 2011. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. In that case, I've pointed the two redirects I mentioned, McNeil Island Penitentiary and McNeil Island Federal Prison, at the new article. TJRC (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Talkback

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

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

ExoticProgrammingLanguagesSeeAlso

Hi
I have scheduled article ExoticProgrammingLanguagesSeeAlso for immediate deletion .. I suppose that some automat will delete the article .. Am I Right?
And replaced the article by template Template:ExoticProgrammingLanguagesSeeAlso.
Reason was : originally I wanted to make template for commmon "See Also" for all "esoteric-programming-language" similar articles... but I was unable to create template (reason:was not logged in :-)
Now "See also" is done by template Template:ExoticProgrammingLanguagesSeeAlso .. Is it OK now ?
--Slavomir.dvorsky (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good idea. "See also" should be populated by links deemed appropriate to the article on a case-by-case basis, not templated in without determining whether each individual link is appropriate. You need to meet WP:SEEALSO for each of the propose links, including not linking to articles already linked in the body. This looks like an attempted solution to a problem that does not exist. What you are trying to do here is already well-addressed by the category category:Esoteric programming languages. I note you don't have a lot of edits under your belt. It would probably be a good idea for you to gain some experience with wikipedia by editing the ordinary way for a while, making edits and adding substance to articles dealing with subjects you know, rather than trying these more structural things. TJRC (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

I’m a new editor on Wikipedia. I recently tried to add an external link to what I believe is relevant content that is found in Linfield College’s institutional repository. I am not trying to spam, add inappropriate links, or promote a product. Because the material is directly related to the topic, I’m not sure why this link would be considered inappropriate. Can you explain why you removed the external link? Thank you!Ssumkhu (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ordinarily respond on my talk page, but given the multiplicity of editors who have reverted your edits, and the unrelated nature of the articles to which you've added them, I'm responding on your talk page. The sole common characteristic of the 19 links you added (other than the target site) is that you made them, so that's the most logical place to discuss. TJRC (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 17#Category:Companies of China

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 17#Category:Companies of China. Fayenatic (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Please do not remove redlinks in disambiguation pages. They have a purpose, to inform editors about possible future articles, and facilitate navigation to them. I think this is mentioned somewhere in one of the many guidelines. But it is logical enough, IMHO. I have reverted one of your edits to Nightfall accordingly. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:Not on disambiguation pages; see WP:MOSDAB. TJRC (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Huh; that seems to have changed some time ago. I disagree with it, but given the apparent consensus, will not re-revert. TJRC (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As I said, I think it is logical enough. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-NumberCombination

Template:Letter-NumberCombination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding (2nd nomination)

TJRC, you very briefly commented on the above AfD. What procedure or template is there for inviting other independent editors to come read and comment? I've searched quite a bit and haven't found it, but I recall seeing it used on another Afd previously. Austex • Talk 21:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can read WP:AFD#Notifying_interested_people and WP:DELSORT. I think the bulk of what you're sking for has already been done by these edits: [34], [35].
You know, it's interesting that you started out the AFD saying you had a COI and would refrain from making further comments in the AFD, but, out of the 63 edits in the AFD, all but 15 have been made by you; that is, you've made 3x the number of edits of everyone else combined. It might be a good idea for you to sit back and let the AFD run its course. TJRC (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are well taken. I keep messing with the tiniest detail. I'll pull back. Austex • Talk 22:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.

[36] See WP:CITEVAR, and I expect to never see you make such a revert again. You didn't even inform me. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please see CITEVAR. "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it. Do not change it merely for personal preference or cosmetic reasons. Do not add citation templates to an article that already uses an accepted citation format. If you think the existing citation system is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page." TJRC (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article's established form is no citation templates. You are edit warring to retain them in violation of WP:CITEVAR. Your editing is disruptive. If you ever do this again I will block you. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not edit warring. I am asking you to obtain a consensus. If you are an admin, and block me over this, you are abusing your privileges and I will open a case against you. TJRC (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The form of every other citation in that article is no citation templates. Now self-revert your disruptive edits. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please obtain consensus. TJRC (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, the cite templates were added in violation of guideline. The established form of the article is no citation templates. Do you dispute this? If so, then please explain how 98 of 102 references can be in no citation templates and you can justify disruptively edit warring to retain citation templates in the other 4? Your editing is obtructionist. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please obtain consensus. We're just repeating ourselves now, so I will not be continuing this discussion. If you open a discussion to obtain consensus on the talk page, I will join in. TJRC (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. S

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

UC Irvine School of Medicine

TJRC, I would like to thank you for your comments and request to update the site information. It was handled in a very professional manor, something I can say hasn’t been done in the past. I am trying very hard to update the content within the parameters of Wikipedia and will make the adjustments to remove unnecessary external links and fix the internal links. What I am struggling with is the creation of reference links and cannot find information how to create the correctly. This is why I created the reference links as external links. I will make the adjustment today and hopefully succeed.

Thanks again for your help on this issue. GA

Hacontact (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)HA Contact Gil A.Hacontact (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sid Tarrabain, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

This is quite obnoxious. My !vote doesn't have a direct reply, it was merely referred to in another !vote. I was quite clear enough about what I was changing in my comment and I think it qualifies as exactly what I said it was, a correction in the wikilink, certainly not a change intended to alter the substance of my remarks. But not satisfied just to change my comment, you've also changed another editor's as well. This is unhelpful, especially from such an experienced editor. I'm requesting that you self-revert. If you want to chastise me for editing my comment, either template me on my talk page or post a complaint where I did it. But please don't refactor me or others. Msnicki (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first, let me apologize if my edit upset you.
By way of explanation; yes, your comment had been replied to: I replied to it in my comment expressing a !vote, directly below yours; [37]. My statement " I disagree that WP:1E applies here" was in direct response to your statement "notable only for his death in an auto accident WP:1E". Your edit was contrary to WP:REDACT, for the reasons given there: "Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context."
But, shame on me: my edit of your comment itself was contrary to the text right above that WP:TPO, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request." So, yes, I see my edit was wrong, and apologize for that; I should have either asked you to make the same edit, or modified my own comment to explain that I had responded to an earlier unedited comment.
And just for clarity, as you presumably gather from the above, I did not "also changed another editor's as well."; I changed my own.
Given the above do you still request that I revert myself? It seems pointless given the above, since my next request would be to request for you to make the same edit, to conform to WP:REDACT. TJRC (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did want you to revert, which is why I asked you. Since you did not, offering only excuses, I reverted your change to my comment myself. In the future, if you don't like my remarks, complain if you feel it necessary, but do not refactor them. Msnicki (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

You're asking User:212.159.45.2 to "prove the bases [sic]" for redirecting articles like this. Essentially, you're asking the user to prove a negative. The user does not need to prove that the song did not chart....you/anyone else who wants to keep the article as is need to prove that it did chart. What 212.159.45.2 is doing is not vandalism, so please stop warning/templating the user and reverting his edits as vandalism. either way (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly mass-deleting material without the knowledge of the subject matter he's editing. Look at his edit history. TJRC (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing he is doing is wrong, and certainly not vandalism. He is redirecting non-notable songs to the album as is standard. If they are, in fact, notable songs, this needs to be prove through reliable sources in the article. I would say he does have knowledge of the subject matter, though, based on hundreds of edits related to songs/music in his history. either way (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I see you have reverted my redirect of the article. Again, you need to prove that this is, in fact, a notable single. Right now absolutely nothing in the article proves it is notable. It is not on me to prove that. either way (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is on you if you want to make content decisions based on your belief about the subject matter of the article and its notability. I just added the charting info, but look: please don't make unilateral judgments about the notability of the subject of an article, especially if you don't know anything about it. If you're that concerned, raise it as a PROD or an AFD. TJRC (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I have put it up at AFD. Additionally, again, it doesn't matter what I know about the subject. It matters what's in the article with reliable sources. Nothing in the article I was redirecting showed it was a notable single...it just show it was, in fact, a single. Therefore, I redirected because nothing proved it was notable in there. either way (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Valley

Thank you, TJRC for your kind advices. When I took a look at the Silicon Valley article discussion page this evening, I got what you meant when you wrote: “Don't waste your time with Coolcaaser. He's demonstrated that he is not interested in civility toward other editors”. It looks like you were so right … --Studentusa2011 (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Apollo hoax in popular culture, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo hoax in popular culture (2nd nomination). Thank you. Senior Trend (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Redirects

Redirects simply make sure that a wikilink leads to the desired article or page. They are not superior to having a direct link. They are usually accidentally created and should not be intentionally created. SMP0328. (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're certainly not usually accidentally created. See WP:Redirect#Purposes of redirects for a pretty good discussion. In many cases, they are effectively aliases to enable references to the target articles without cumbersome piping. Really, see WP:NOTBROKEN for a discussion of this point. Yes, they're sometimes incidentally (I wouldn't say "accidentally") created, as a result of page moves, but that's far from being the usual means of creation or the main or primary purpose behind them. TJRC (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Redirect page is a guideline, not a policy, so it should not be enforced. It's simply a recommendation. I don't think anybody has any difficulty with editing on account of there being or not being any redirect. Things like long citations, especially ones with quotes, likely cause editing difficulties for people. SMP0328. (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat more than a mere "recommendation." A guideline is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Do you believe that the Second Amendment article is exceptional, so that the guideline should not be followed? TJRC (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello TJRC! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Beating of Hillary Adams

As someone who has edited Beating of Hillary Adams, you may be interested in commenting at Talk:Beating of Hillary Adams#Merge/redirect. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. But hopefully, both articles will be deleted at AFD. If either one, or both, is deleted, the merger discussion is moot. You might wish to put your two cents in at either AFD you have an opinion on . TJRC (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


template nono

with respect to this: [38] I'd changed that to 'retracted' on purpose (it seemed a more appropriate and less aggressive word), so it wasn't a typo. do you really prefer redacted? --Ludwigs2 02:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was a typo. It definitely should not be "retracted." "retracted" is the wrong word; it means that the person who put the stricken text out there took the words back. "Redacted" means the words are concealed, and is the correct word. If you use "retracted," you are misrepresenting that the person who made the edit being redacted has voluntarily decided to retract them. TJRC (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good enough. since I mostly use this to obscure my own errors in judgement, I thought 'retracted' was better, but I can always add that in as a2nd parameter. --Ludwigs2 03:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from. "Retracted" is perfectly correct in those cases where the person adding the template is the author of the words being stricken. I don't know if that's the usual case, though, and if it is, then the template name "{{redact}}" is a misnomer. The two circumstances seem like different enough cases that they should have separate templates. I encountered this template here, where one editor was redacting another's comment, rather than retracting his own. TJRC (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

Mate, with all due respect, WP:BRD applies to the new editor - not to someone trying to keep the original consensus. Cooldra01 (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mosquito Lagoon Page

I have added content I have written about Mosquito Lagoon after doing much local research on the subject. The content is from my webpage on Mosquito Lagoon and is not copyrighted, but it is copied directly. I do not mean to be a tattle tale but I am left wondering how the other external links were added to this page as it does not appear they added any content at all. I may, of course, be mistaken. I have a white hat attitude but I need to take advantage of any and all opportunities. It's a large web, after all. I do enjoy sharing information. Am I cleared to add my external link now? Please advise so I may better understand and play by the rules. I could also add a couple of images from Mosquito Lagoon if that is allowed. Please forgive me as I am new to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglimited (talk • contribs) 00:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You raise good points about the other links. One of them was clearly just a commercial; another had more merit: it was a reprint of a published article. I've updated the EL section accordingly. I still think your proposed EL does not belong, but I admit to being a bit biased based on how it was so indiscriminately added to multiple articles. Bring it up on the article's talk page; if there is a consensus that it belongs, I won't object. TJRC (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per your instructions, I posted the following on the Mosquito Lagoon talk page. I have checked from time to time and I have found no responses. I am only asking to place an external link on the Mosquito Lagoon page. Do I have permission? , added January 17, 2012 Greetings! I have added a great deal of content to this page, Mosquito Lagoon, from my uncopyrighted website and would gladly add images as well. www.CaptKarty.com has pages on seatrout, redfish, dolphins, manatees, recipes, fishing and flyfishing, information gleaned from research as well as from twenty years of fishing in Mosquito Lagoon. Would an exteral link to the website be appropriate? Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglimited (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced material

It's the responsibility of the editor doing the insertion to provide a source. If you feel the urge to source the material, that's fine. If I remove unsourced material (complete with an incorrect article title pointing to a non-existent article, in this case), that's also fine.—Kww(talk) 22:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, of the 53 appearances in that section, only 3 have sources, and the link was to a valid variant of the title, deletion of material without determining whether it ought to be deleted seems more than a little pointy. I had more regard for you when I thought it was an honest mistake; but it's unfortunate that you still think you did the right thing even when your error is pointed out. TJRC (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth realm

Not to gripe, but are pipe-links really that bad? GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There really is a good discussion at WP:NOTBROKEN, where I pointed. They don't do any good, and they make an article harder to read in source, among other things. In sum, it doesn't help; and hurts a little. Is there any particular reason you want to do this? I don't see anything different about this article that suggests it should not follow editing guidelines. TJRC (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look good, linking to 2 articles next to each other - [Pope] [Leo X]. Thefore I combined them as [Pope Leo X]. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, please don't. Let's stick to the guidelines, okay? TJRC (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, scratch that last comment; I misunderstood (and undid my own resulting edit). I still think it's probably worth linking Pope, but that's a judgment call. TJRC (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited United States Figure Skating Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Coughlin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orpheus Amulet

Hi, I appreciate your attempts to be even-handed on this, but I don't agree with your approach. Firstly, Wikipedia policy is clearly that self-published fringe sources are unacceptable - and I have provided good, acceptable sources for the alternative view. BRD does not trump good sourcing rules, as far as I can see. Secondly, if you look at the history of this dispute you will see that at least 4 different editors have put the mainstream view and only one is supporting the inclusion of the item, on the other hand. So insofar as there is a consensus it is clearly against inclusion.

I have part-reverted my 2 edits today but I propose to reinstall my last one unless the single editor in favour of this can come up with a better citation very quickly.

Sorry to be so abrupt here - I am sure we are on the same side on this - but I am very pressed for time and really should be doing other things. --Rbreen (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a procedural point: you should discuss on the talk page when you're making a disputed edit, and this one has a history. That's it. My take? You're probably right. Why don't you make your point on the talk page? That's what it's for. TJRC (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Talk archive

Hi TJRC, I find it complicated to carry on a conversation on two separate pages, so I've responded on my Talk page to your message concerning your recent undo of my undo. Please read it as friendly in tone (with a New Zealand accent). Koro Neil (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestive dialogue

I've closed the RfD as convert to a DAB page. You indicated that you were interested in doing that, so I figured I'd notify you that it's all set. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thanks. TJRC (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox snack

Please don't nominate this for G4 speedy; that's only applicable when the current content is the same as the deleted content, so a redirect doesn't qualify for G4 when the previous deletion was that of a template. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I put the explanation on the talk page, because it wasn't obvious; but I'll take it to XFD. TJRC (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epicenter

Thanks for seeing that erroneous change I made. I was watching out for quotations (as you will see from some of the other changes I made) but this one slipped through. Imc (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you

A Barnstar!
Golden Wiki Award
Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.137 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwyer

The reason I want the header left as-is, is so that the OP's attitude is clearly on display. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. For what it's worth, I do think that he has a good point and if there actually were an alternate image available, that would be a better photo to use in the infobox; with this photo moved to the suicide section. But not unless/until that photo is available, and not deleted in its entirety in any case. TJRC (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, he alleged that he had such an image, but he didn't post it. I agree that a neutral image would be better for the infobox. But until he makes good on his promise to supply such an image, that's the best we've got. And, frankly, no one outside of his political or family circles likely would remember this guy if it wasn't for his dramatic, public suicide. I did see that there was a normal portrait on findagrave, but I'm not keen on ripping that one off. P.S. I wonder if you've ever seen the uncensored video clip. It's grim. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'm right there with you. I also had initially thought that the only basis for notability was the suicide; but there are a surprising number of Pennsylvania Treasurers with articles.
I've seen the video; I don't care to see it again. While it's not as bad as the Daniel Pearl one, which still gives me the willies; it's bad enough. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've seen the Pearl video. I was watching a clip of Vince D'Onofrio's final scene in Full Metal Jacket, and it could have been a carbon copy of the Dwyer video - except it was clearly fake, for gory reasons I can skip here. The findagrave entry for Dwyer is here:[39] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And having just skimmed the article to refresh my memory, I think I'll skip the Pearl video. The Buddhist monk who burned himself in Vietnam, and Dwyer, both did themselves in voluntarily. That's different from a "snuff" film such as the Pearl video presumably would be. What savages. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. I saw the Pearl video shortly after the event. Somewhere or other a link to the video was posted, and I couldn't help myself. It's as hideous as you no doubt imagine.
I did enjoy Full Metal Jacket, though, like every Kubrick film I've ever seen (well, maybe not Eyes Wide Shut). It always struck me as almost being two one-hour films; each of two portions -- basic training and in-country -- stand alone well on their own; but much better combined. TJRC (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kubrick was certainly a unique character, and while his films might be uneven, or sometimes questionable as entertainment, they always generated a good deal of discussion. I realized in writing here, that the Dwyer incident and the "Gomer Pyle" incident both came in 1987. As I recall, Platoon (which had come out in late 1986) kind of overshadowed Full Metal Jacket, being the same general theme. It was funny hearing Hartman in FMJ invoke the same "steers and queers" line that had been spoken by Louis Gossett in Officer and a Gentleman. However, I read somewhere that Ermey was an advisor on Officer, so that might have been his line. Gossett made a better drill sergeant on-screen, I think, because he seemed realistic, while Ermey was right on the edge of being cartoonish. Not that I would have wanted to have to deal with either one of them. Getting a bit off-track here. Sorry. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the main section heading to neutral terms posted earlier by yourself and another editor, and retained the OP's stupid comment as a sub-heading. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates

Thanks for catching what was indeed a good-faith edit on my part. I was surprised when the link didn't work for me, as NR usually does a pretty good job with its archives. As you said, it must have just been a hiccup on my part or theirs. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Bonds

Hi TJRC, I recently changed Prudential plc to Prudential Financial on the Bowie Bonds page. Apologies for changing without citing the source. I have confirmation from Prudential Financial that it was them and not Prudential plc. I could not find out where the original source came from in any of the articles. Can you please advise me of the best way forward? Should I ask Prudential Financial in America to change this rather than me? Debbie Crowley (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TJRC, on further investigation the reference to the statement that Prudential Insurance Company ("PIC") bought the bonds (note 1) is the Eastside Journal of 15 February 1997. Wikipedia have then cross referenced PIC to plc instead of Prudential Financial Insurance.

Can I draw your attention to the fact that the ultimate holding company of PIC is PFI not Prudential plc. You can find this information at www.prudential.com.

I do need to get this changed to Prudential Financial as it is currently incorrect. Debbie Crowley (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRJC, I now have the references.

Can you please change this article? The article should read: 'Issued in 1997, the bonds were bought for US$55 million by the Prudential Insurance Company of America'.

The references are:

http://bonds.about.com/od/buyingbonds/a/BowieBond.htm http://www.pullmanco.com/article118.htm

Please let me know if you are able to now update this article? Debbie Crowley (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, first, let me apologize for not responding to your comment. I just had a short vacation, and between preparing to go, going, and than catching up on work when I returned, I let this slip throgh the cracks. I saw the update you made today, and it looks perfect. Thanks for taking the time to locate and cite a reliable source. TJRC (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Morgan Nick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lightning bug (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. TJRC (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyvale

Can you do me a favor and step into the most recent Sunnyvale edit issue? The guy is pushing back, and I don't think he'll accept further pushback just from me. Jokeboy (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I hereby award TJRC this Barnstar for their insights and work at AFD Shakehandsman (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hart's Location, New Hampshire

None of the three citations included in the Federal elections section support your claim of the "town's reputation as belwether". Without a citation, the section fails notability, does not fall within Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Government and is most likely Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. It has an arbitrary start date, but worse, has no logical end, and within a decade or two would consume a huge portion of the page. It should be removed, or at least turned into it's own page (but I doubt it would meet notability) Cheers, Dkriegls (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice re quote

Thanks TJRC for your advice re the problem with the quote. I have put a response on my Talk page GrahamGreenleaf (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Format corrections at Sarah Chang

If you would have been paying attention, I was not the one to add the "trivia" as you sarcastically put it (diff here); also, I was not the one who wrote the accompanying text about tweeting. I demand an apology for your rudeness, when all I was doing was reformatting the previous editor's badly inserted BARE URL's. I took the flak for User:Grashazk. When you did the roll-back that you had intended, you could have added -- "Didn't mean to target Skol_fir for this" or something to that effect. It is a matter of courtesy to admit your mistakes, instead of leaving others to assume the worst intentions. --Skol fir (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, sorry about the erroneous revert. Looking at the cumulative changes, it had appeared that all the intervening edits were yours, and I missed the one by the first editor. Also, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by my not acknowledging you when I corrected that. TJRC (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. It was not my feelings that were hurt. I was unjustly blamed for "trivia" and making a false claim about the role of "tweeting." That was what bothered me, and the fact that you did not catch yourself when you realized that you had picked on the wrong person. I don't like to be wrongly accused. That's all. Don't forget that even edit summaries are permanent and anyone looking at the history of this page will think I was a klutz. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald

There was nothing legitimate about the talk page comments I removed. Those comments were full of personal attacks upon me by an anonymous user who has a hard time editing without making everything personal. The purpose of the talk page is to facilitate constructive dialogue toward improving the article, not impugning the motives or character of other editors. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 00:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Yukawa Change

Hello TJRC. You have reverted the edits i made to Diana Yukawa's page but these were simply factual changes, not promotional as you state. As Diana's manager these amendments were correct. Please can you undo your revert and then I am happy to make the small changes that you feel are promtional... thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.136.96 (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions. The first of your edits [40] was factual and sourced, with only a little hype, and was retained.
Your second edit [41] was almost entirely puffery and promotion. "Diana has lead an extraordinary life"; " revolutionary sound"; "cutting edge, innovative, modern sound"; "uses together effortlessly to craft original and powerful pieces of music capable of fitting a complete range of briefs"; "her fascinating heritage and life story", etc. This is, of course, the sort of promotional material a publicity-seeking manager is expected to produce for his or her clients, but Wikipedia is not the platform for it. Please see WP:NOTPROMOTION.
In addition, as Yukawa's manager, you have an obvious conflict of interest between your representation of Yukawa and Wikipedia's aim to have a neutral-POV article on her, so please read WP:COI (or the plain and simple conflict of interest guide) and take particular care to comply with it. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

64.228.156.103

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with Bloomberg Law

Hi-there. I have been working on the Bloomberg Law article, which is currently lacking any major information or citation. After seeking help through various WikiProjects without luck, I wanted to approach you about possibly taking a look at my draft to be uploaded to the current article because I have seen that you are active with other law related articles. I want to note that I do some work for Bloomberg and have openly acknowledged my conflict of interest. Any help would be greatly appreciated. My draft can be found here. Thank you --RivBitz (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered, but between crushing workload and an upcoming vacation, I do not anticipate doing much in Wikipedia for the next month or so. You'd likely eb better served by asking someone else. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thanks for getting back to me and enjoy your vacation! --RivBitz (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I recently ran an experiment deleting 100 random external links. Only 3 were reverted; you were one of the 3. Well done! --Gwern (contribs) 19:58 30 May 2012 (GMT) 19:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judiciary Act of 1891, and Wong Kim Ark

Hi. This may not really make a big difference, but I thought you might want to know why the Judiciary Act of 1891 was included as a "See also" link in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. When the WKA article was being considered for Featured Article, someone questioned why the article said the case had been "appealed" to the Supreme Court, instead of being taken via a writ of certiorari. The reason appears to have been that when a lower court decision dealt with a constitutional issue (including a conflict between the Constitution and federal or state law), the Judiciary Act of 1891 said the losing side had a right to appeal directly and have the case heard by the Supreme Court. One FA reviewer really wanted a source for this — but there simply weren't any secondary sources to be found, and our interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1891 would of course had been original research. The compromise we reached in the end was to stick a link to the act in the "See also" section of the article; this clearly turned out to be too subtle, as your removal of said link illustrates. :-) I'm not sure there is any better way of dealing with this procedural point — or, for that matter, if it really needs to be dealt with at all (since I'm sure no one is going to raise it again now). If anyone does try to "correct" the article to say that it reached SCOTUS via certiorari as opposed to a direct appeal, I'll just point to the text of the opinion, which literally says the case was "appealed". Anyway, just so you'll know the background here. — Richwales 23:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that explanation; that's a pretty funky compromise. I think it's best left out, and the reference you already have in the article pretty clearly states it was an appeal; it doesn't get much more authoritative than the text of the case itself; and its caption (APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA). But I won't object if it gets put back in (although it really doesn't meet the goal of explaining why there was a direct appeal). TJRC (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Oops. Yup. You're right. All this Lance craziness has me disoriented. I don't know if I'm on the talk page or the article. Good catch. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yum, pie! thanks. I'm steering clear of most editing on these, although I've reverted a few edits on some TdF articles where a well-meaning IP editor has struck through Armstrong's name; or promoted the second-comer to winner. One way or the other, the dust will settle in a week or two; no need to rush, is my feeling. TJRC (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update section

Why did you change the text of the documentation of {{Update}} in this edit? The |type= parameter wasn't working? Debresser (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Example here. When I checked the template's doc and talk page I noted the Feb 2012 advice "Use {{update section}} instead." If that's incorrect, and the section parameter can be made to work, please feel free to revert my edit when it works. TJRC (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But this example shows it works! It says "This article is outdated. Please update this section to reflect recent events or newly available information." Debresser (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I'd expected it to say "This article is outdated..." I'll revise my edit, but personally continue using {{update section}}, whose wording is, I think, better. TJRC (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. We could be bold and remove the type=section from the code, and replace its instances by Template:Update section. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, but my template-coding skills aren't up to the task. TJRC (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you remind me in another 2 weeks, I'll do that. I'll be a bit busy till then. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File rename of Adam Joseph Live At Cincinnati Pride 2010.png

Thank you for catching and correcting that error. It was very much appreciated. Sysmithfan (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to. TJRC (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cristo

Hi TJC, you probably guesed I am a newbie to Wikipedia and so I apologise if I unintentionally infringed promotional guidelines- rules when posting to [[42]]. However I would like to make two points:

1. I thought what I wrote was neutral in tone and therefore that seems to be the key point when posting material to which one has a connection. isn't it? Perhaps it wasn't neutral enough. If so I apologise. I certainly did not intend to "sell it". After all this is a free, unfunded and not for sale piece of art so I don't stand to gain financially whatever.

2. I believe it is relevant and of interest to people studying this subject to be aware of www.santacristo.org I really have zero objection to an edit, even a brutal one that makes it short as you like, but it does not seem to serve the reader to remove all mention of something that is obviously relevant.

So please reconsider and I ask you to include some mention however large/small. For your reference there are supporting photos available if you feel one would be appropriate. I note that there are some on the page already. If you have a faceboook account you can see photos here

All the best

Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robingurney (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. It isn't merely an issue of neutrality. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, documenting persons, things and subjects of notability. The article Crucifixion in the arts is not intended to exhaustively capture every reference to crucifixion in the arts; only those that have attained a degree of notability. There's no indication that your art project has sufficient notability to merit a discussion in the article.
With respect to neutrality and WP:COI, financial benefit is not the only consideration. Publicity (which is what I think you're looking for with this edit) is also part of it. In general, you should avoid making any edits that implicate WP:COI, as yours did. If you believe that your art piece is of sufficient notability to be worth a mention, discuss it on Talk:Crucifixion in the arts and see whether an editor without your bias agrees with you.
As an aside, my Wikipedia ID is TJRC, not TJC. I see there is also a TJC, but I have no relation to him or her. TJRC (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TJRC (sorry for mistyping the the wrong handle) All makes sense of course and yes I am biased but then again I see the reaction of people and can only imagine the piece's notability will grow. I guess its too much to expect an editor to judge for inclusion based on artistic merit rather than notability. C'est la vie. Understand about COI. So in the words of the immortal Arnie, "I'll be back" TO Talk:Crucifixion in the arts when notability has reached further. Thanks for clarifying the position and excuse my clumsy but well-intentioned attempt at inclusion. Merry Christmas Robin Robingurney (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited False advertising, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TD Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got better things to do than dance with a stub-writer

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Orphan works in the United States. 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. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reference was retained, in reference #5. The sentence for ref #5 was a direct link to the PDF so I simply turned it into a reference instead. Then I noticed the same material was referenced, albeit less completely, in the first sentence. According to the MOS (WP:LEADCITE), the lead shouldn't really be referenced (because the material will appear again in the article) and since the reference was simply for the definition of the term orphan work, it didn't seem to need any citation, especially in a lead section. I hope this clarifies. [+][dead.henry] (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am AGF but have noticed several other instances where the author links directly from the article to external sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Links (see external links). You probably missed those. I'll leave it to another more-seasoned wikipedian to correct them. Thank you.
  • I don't have time for this. Thank you for showing me how I'm wasting my time trying to raise the bar of WP. Good luck writing your stubs. Bye WP. Look for my work to appear as references in peer-reviewed journals.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TJRC&oldid=519855170"