User talk:TJRC

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

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

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

Thank you!

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helen Huang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibaraki (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) 09:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Note for posterity: this was not unintended; see Talk:Helen Huang#Ibaraki. TJRC (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Tunisian citizens ‎[edit]


Not interested. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Doug Smith (bassist)[edit]

Doug Smith jazz bassist does meet the requirements of a notable musician as per Wikipedia standards as follows:

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if meeting any one of the following criteria:

  • Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes school newspapers, personal blogs, etc.).

I provided multiple references, including two separate articles from a major newspaper written nearly 20 years apart detailing Doug Smith's fifty plus years contributions to jazz and modern live music. He has by his experience and musicianship also mentored a new generation in employing and performing with younger improvisational jazz and modern musicians like Marko Marcinko and Ron Stabinsky--for whom I also provided links in the article I wrote (which were deleted by someone).

Most of Smith's music is live, so mostly unrecorded, including his experimental work. But his influence in his own right has been recognized as a big band orchestra leader, a jazz bassist, and his original live modern improvisational work-- as detailed in the articles I provided and in the links to the musicians and artists he performs with. The articles and links I provided specifically recognize Smith's career, influence, and his importance to modern music, which is why he was featured in the articles to begin with. The articles recognize Smith's contributions and role as a musician, bandleader, and mentor and improvisational musician and they underscore the fact that Smith is a living link between classic and big band era jazz and its ongoing influence and evolution. This article should not be deleted from Wikipedia and the deleted sections links I supplied should be restored. St o'hara (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)St. O'hara

This is better placed on Talk:Doug Smith (bassist) than my talk page.
I don't doubt that Smith exists, or that he's been referred to in publications, but the sources listed aren't really about him, they just mention him.
If there are specific sources that "recognize Smith's career, influence, and his importance to modern music," please add a discussion of that career/influence/importance using those references. I see a number or references have been removed, but the edit summaries say things like "there was no mention of Doug Smith in the provided reference". Make sure you're citing what you meant to cite.
Finally, be aware that under the Proposed Deletion process (see WP:PROD), if you disagree with the proposal to delete, you can simply remove the "Proposed deletion" template. However, if you do so without revising the article to show why the article should be retained, I'll probably take it to the more deliberative WP:AFD process. TJRC (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I did as you suggested and moved discussion of this article to the article's talk page. But it seems you have not read all the references yourself since you write that the references I cited "aren't really about him[Smith]," when, in fact, I cited two major newspaper articles appearing over a nearly twenty year period solely featuring Doug Smith's career and his music as their subject.St o'hara (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)St o'hara

Space Shuttle Columbia disaster[edit]

Yes you made a mistake. Repair it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't include a reference. Include a reference and your edit can stand. If you're suggesting I research the music band you're trying to add to the article about the Columbia disaster, and find a supporting cite for you: no, I decline to do that. TJRC (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Might be of interest[edit]

David Shariatmadari in The Guardian wrote an article about another Wikipedian who removes "is comprised of". English does change: I was taught that if a politician said "The government may...", we had to report the speech as "...said that the government might...", which people just don't do any more. Maybe you'll find the article worth a look. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm in awe of that guy.
I concede English changes, but I'm mostly about clarity. Using "comprise" to mean the opposite of "comprise" isn't just wrong (IMHO), but also muddies the text. You can usually figure out what was meant, but why not avoid the issue in the first place? "consisting of" is clearer and unquestionably correct, in most cases. TJRC (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Why are you changing the facts?[edit]

You are constantly deleting changing the facts and footnoted statements of this person's legacy at the AFF. Yes the main article is about the AFF and that is the job she had for the last 12 years as a "Business Executive". That is important aspects of this persons life. Just Google the woman and she is all about the AFF and funds missing. One of the footnotes is the actual copy of the AFF's form 990 for the tax year of 2014 where this information about her stealing funds is listed and is copied word for word. Sorry about the world of PD, but the last 12 at the AFF have been documented well with lots of links. She may not like it, but those are the facts. She resigned for a reason! It is part of her legacy. Get over it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriciaAFF41 (talkcontribs) 08:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Questionable NPOV[edit]


Thanks for your edits to Patricia Driscoll (business executive). I am taking a look at the article, and I found much of it to be somewhat WP:UNDUE, and I would appreciate your opinion as well.


GABHello! 20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here. The editor's handle "PatriciaAFF41" seems to suggest that it belongs to Driscoll ("Patricia" + "AFF" as in "Armed Forces Foundation"; not sure what, if anything, the "41" might signify). Yet the edits being made seem to be designed to paint Driscoll in the worst possible light.
I've warned him/her about ownership issues; it's pretty clear that he or she seems intent on just continually restoring his/her preferred text.
The thing is, I can't even remember why I got involved in editing this article, way back in 2010 or so. I think it was just part of some generalized clean-up, both that and Armed Forces Foundation. I've got no axe to grind either way, but hate to see a Wiikipedia article, especially a BLP one, used as a magnet for POV. TJRC (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know about the whole subject, I am just worried about the BLP issues. They are slow-mo edit-warring still. Not sure what the next step is. GABHello! 12:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

SilkAir Flight 185[edit]

I change a sentence because it seems to me that the sentence is not gramatically correct. Isn't it ? The verb °participated" has two subjets : Boeing and NTSB. But the manner the phrase it is now written seems incorrect. Could you explain your position ?


--AXRL (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a crappy sentence, even as it stands (with apologies to whoever wrote it). What the paragraph is trying to say is that there were two investigations: one by the US NTSB, and one by the Indonesian NYSC. What that sentence is saying is that the basis for US NTSB jurisdiction is the fact that the aircraft was manufactured in the US.
It's not ungrammatical, but I can see the confusion. It's saying first: "The aircraft was built by Boeing in the United States". Then it goes on to say, without clearly making the connection that the US manufacture is the basis for NTSB jurisdiction, "the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (under lead investigator Greg Feith) participated in the investigation of the crash."
Let me take stab at wordsmithing to clear the awkwardness. TJRC (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Check it out now, and feel free to tweak if you think you can improve it. TJRC (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Perfect now ! Thank you.

--AXRL (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for not participating in the defamation of character of an individual- Patricia Driscoll. Clearly the PatriciaAFF41 person has an axe to grind with Driscoll and is distorting facts and taking information from sources that slanderous in Nature. 41 happens to be the number of the race car driver ex boyfriend whom she received a restraining order by a Delaware court. This appears to be a re-victimization of a victim of domestic violence. Thank you for standing up for the victim by not allowing that information to continue to persist and destroy the life a of living person. JJordanISIS (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi TJRC, thanks for your note on my talk page, which invited me to respond here:

I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Signavio, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

The intention of my recent edits on the Signavio page was to add similar information and links to the section for the Effektif product as was already present for the Signavio Process Editor product. When I read the links guidelines, I wasn’t sure how to apply the guideline on only linking to the official site, as Effektif has a separate official product web site than the other Signavio products. As for the other information - a sentence about the product’s purpose, a bullet list of key features, and a reference to the trial version - I took my lead from the existing Signavio Process Editor section, with relevant references.

How about I expand the Effektif section without the links to the Effektif product web site, since the same information is available via the existing Official website link?

Peter Hilton (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter. The thing is, the article is not about the Effektif product; it is about the company Signavio. I don't think there's any indication that Effektif is sufficiently notable to merit an article; and it should not be shoehorned into Signavio to circumvent that. This is a process we refer to as coatracking, and is not an acceptable practice at Wikipedia.
It's pretty cleare that you have a WP:COI on this subject; you should probably refrain from editing this article. TJRC (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Patricia Driscoll (business executive)[edit]

Just wondering what you recommend we do there moving forward. I hope we can somehow find a solution. GABHello! 00:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

He or she has been warned enough. If he or she keeps it up and does not engage on the talk page, we should open an issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. TJRC (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If You're Reading This, It's Too Late (novel)[edit]

I have reverted your move of this article per this RM from last year. You are, of course, welcome to start a new RM if you disagree. Chase (talk | contributions) 02:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies; I'd missed that RM. Thanks for reverting me and saving me the effort of the self-reverts. TJRC (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

COMMON - a users group[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you've been editing COMMON recently. Thanks! I've been a member of the organization since 1989, and they've been sending mailings forever headed by text and logos including the words "COMMON - a user's group". You can see this in their logo, and on their facebook page [1], their linkedin page [2] and pretty much every mailing they've sent out since I've been a member. IBM refers to them this way [3] as well. Do you think there is some way you could work that into the article that would be acceptable to you? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edit says it's the organization name, though, not just that it's used on letterhead and their logo. Do you have a WP:RS showing a name change? Their own web site, as I noted in my edit summary, says the name is just COMMON. TJRC (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Dan Cooper[edit]

The reference you requested. (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC Margaret Hamilton[edit]

The RFC you recently participated in has had a further proposal. Please consider reviewing and commenting at it here. Thank you. Markbassett (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Secret Service codename[edit]

Why not? Sinatra had one. But, yes I meant the politician.Thanx. Naraht (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope my summary didn't come off as snarky; looking at it now, I think it may. I was going for light-hearted. TJRC (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Wildfires project[edit]

Hello! You are getting this form message because I have noticed that you have been actively editing pages about wildfires in California. I am trying to recruit some people who might be interested in starting a new wildfire project that focuses on large and notable wildfires. Is this something you would have any interest in being part of? Obviously there is no firm commitment that needs to be made. At the moment, I'm just trying to get a dozen or so people to say they're interested. Please let me know if you have any interest. I have created a project proposal that I would love to hear your opinion of. Thanks!!! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, Zackmann08. I actually have no real knowledge or expertise about wildfires, although your project sounds like a good one. My family just happened to be camping in the vicinity of (well, 30 miles or so away from) the Soberanes fire, and we drove past it during its second day. It's close enough to our home that we get ash droppings (Santa Clara County -- definitely far enough away that we're in no danger), so I have an interest in this particular one. I noticed that the photo had been deleted, then realized we had a few shots of the fire, so I added them. TJRC (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah gotcha. Well if it is something you would be interested in, I could still use your input! Expertise in wildfires not required. In fact, it would be great to have someone on "the team" who is NOT a fire buff. Helps to make sure we aren't using too much technical mumbo-jumbo. Also, can we just pause for a second to admire the fact that mumbo-jumbo has a wikipedia page?!?!?! :-p --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Good point. Anyway, my own lack of expertise aside, it sounds like a very worthy project, and I've added my support and comments to the proposal. TJRC (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Wildfire[edit]

Information icon

Hello! I have recently started a new WikiProject and am trying to recruit new members. The project, WikiProject Wildfire, focuses on articles that relate to wildfires. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. From updating templates, to classifying and improving articles. Any level of commitment is welcome! If you care to just add some input on the founding of the new project, awesome. If you would like to take an active role in editing articles, that is awesome as well! Knowledge of wildfires is NOT a prerequisite for joining the project. In fact, it would be great to have some members of the project who are NOT fire-buffs. That way we make sure that articles aren't just written by and for people in the fire community. If this is something you have any interest in, I would love to have you join the project! Please feel free to join the discussion or leave me a message on my talk page. (Note that you are receiving this message from me because I saw you made multiple edits on a wildfire related page, specifically Soberanes Fire. Not just spamming you at random.) Hope you have a great day! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Didn't mean to "form letter" you... But there it is!!! :-) --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
In particular for your work on Soberanes Fire. Keep it up! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry you are having to put up with that IP... NOT cool. Keep up the great work. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Animal-made art[edit]

Hi! You have delete my edit on Animal-made art - to include a citation. I think, it'll be more useful to return the text back and add citation needed flag. I need some time to find the sources, if pictures ([4]) is not enought. Thank you! Y~ruwiki (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the cn tag is usually used when information has been around for a long time; we don't want to remove it lightly. But new material added without a source should just be deleted until sourced.
It's a good edit, other than the lack of source. If you have a source, feel free to re-add it with the source. If you have no source, it should not be added. TJRC (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Some links added. Y~ruwiki (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Nicely done. I've tweaked it some, but good work. TJRC (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok. But why do you exclude the Beluga whale from text? Y~ruwiki (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
None of the sources you provided mentioned a Beluga whale. TJRC (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
See picture in article :) This is not a fake. Y~ruwiki (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You'll need a source. TJRC (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Have a look Y~ruwiki (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Well done. TJRC (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for catching my mistake. (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar thank you[edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for your kind and helpful words at my talk page. (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


Why Immaculate Conception isn't related to other topics ? If it falls in late Autumn, it's the same for Thanksgiving: at least in United States, the latter falls in Sagittarius days (sign of end season). --Sean Ago (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I pointed that out in my edit summary: unrelated, other than occurring in (late) autumn. It's not related to Autumn. It doesn't meet the criteria set out in WP:SEEALSO. It's not really a "related Wikipedia article". Thanksgiving arguably is, because it's tied to the autumn harvest, something strongly associated with the subject of the article.
Halloween should probably go, too. TJRC (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Tom Torlakson Photo Request[edit]

Thank you for responding to my comments at Talk:Tom Torlakson regarding my recent photo request for that article. Any assistance you can provide in updating that article would be most appreciated.--TommyBoy (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


You recently reverted an edit of mine at Cleveland–Marshall College of Law. My edit converted "Juris Doctor" to "J.D." You reverted it for what I gather are two reasons: (1) "abbreviation should not be used without a prior explanation of it" and (2) "this edit lost the wikilink." From what I can tell though the then-existing and current version of that article, in the immediately preceding section, contains a parenthetical explanation of what J.D. stands for and it already contains a wikilink to "Juris Doctor." If I correctly understand Wikipedia's guidelines, I think my edit should be preferred. Right now, the entry contains three separate wikilinks to "Juris Doctor," whereas Wikipedia's guidelines on internal linking says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead" (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking). The current article does not line up with these guidelines because it contains three uses in two consecutive paragraphs.

Additionally, it seems that the abbreviation "J.D." is sufficiently explained prior to my proposed use of it. The immediately preceding paragraph begins "In addition to the Juris Doctor (J.D.) and the Master of Laws (L.L.M.) . . ." thus indicating what "J.D." stands for. Additionally, that same paragraph uses the abbreviation "J.D." five times before my version of the page used it. So it seems wrong to say there was not a prior explanation of the use of the abbreviation "J.D." Let me know if my understanding of Wikipedia policies is in error. JEN9841 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you're right. Thanks for pointing it out. TJRC (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Warning edit war on Asimov[edit]

Please stop edit waring on the Asimov article. I have been looking at this for a few days, and you push that revert button too quickly. In addition, to my outside opinion, based on my many years on Wikipedia, your edit is not correct. I tried to explain myself in the edit summary, but it is about time you understand that whether you agree or not, is not justification for reverting and edit waring. I expect you to discuss this on the talkpage and reach a clear consensus before yo make any further edits. Debresser (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

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

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

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


Thanks for evidently fixing something I did on the When Hell Was in Session page. I didn't konw I had altered the page. I was trying to just link to it from an article I was creating, but I must have goofed. I saw your message you fixed whatever I did, so thanks. I'm just getting the hang of Wikipedia creation after being just a user for a long time. Gelo962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talkcontribs) 00:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably a paste when you meant to copy, or something like that. No worries, I've got my share of similar mistakes here. TJRC (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The Russian Bride[edit]

Hi, I have continued editing The Russian Bride, removed both your templates, and replied to your template notification on my talk. If you have remaining concerns, please discuss them on the article's talk page, or better yet help improve the article's content. Finding your work covered with a huge deletion proposal from out of the blue is not a pleasant experience. Friendly collaboration is much prefered. Lyrda (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded at Talk:The Russian Bride. TJRC (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

File source problem with File:David Kappos being sworn as USPTO Director (2009-08-13).jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:David Kappos being sworn as USPTO Director (2009-08-13).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Treaty ratification[edit]

Hello, Do you know what was the result of this? (Apologies for asking your help, but I don't know where to find this kind of official information.) -- Asclepias (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

For the United States, for copyright-related treaties, the best source is the US Copyright Office's Circular 38a: International Copyright Relations of the United States. It's updated pretty frequently. The current release is February 2017, which I guess is about as current as one can hope, and it says:
The United States has not yet acceded to the two treaties below:
Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances. On June 26, 2012, the United States and 47 other nations signed the treaty. It will enter into force once 30 eligible parties, including countries or certain intergovernmental organizations, ratify it.
It sounds to me like it was not yet ratified by the U.S.
This is a WIPO treaty, and the External links section has a link to its list of signatories. It lists 15 ratifications or accessions, so it looks like it's halfway there. The US is not listed as having ratified, so even when it hits 30 countries, the US would not be bound unless/until it ratifies.
The official source in the US is the US State Department, but for copyright treaties, the Copyright Office is very good about keeping track, so I normally just look at them. Hope this helps you. TJRC (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for this helpful answer. -- Asclepias (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert on Murder of Sylvia Likens[edit]

Regarding your undoing of my edit on the Murder of Sylvia Likens article, you said that it is "inappropriate to change from the acceptable style already in use." I know that the MOS permits the use of both styles, but the use of only an apostrophe after the name "Likens" is the style that is already in use in that article. I was reverting this edit here that partially changed it for no discernible reason. Sorry that I wasn't clearer about that in the edit summary. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I saw your edit summary reverting my reversion, and it made perfect sense. I gave you a thanks for it. TJRC (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I just figured it was a good idea to explain myself; I only noticed you left a thanks after I wrote the above reply. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The Planets[edit]

Hello TJRC,

Thank you for taking the time to review the edits made to Wikipedia pages. I am sure it is a for the most part thankless job. I added the reference to the Venture Brothers episode under popular culture because there were similar posts in that section (2 Simpsons episodes, as well as BBC and Netflix show references). The show is fairly popular, and there are over a million combined views of this opening scene on Youtube (just search "Venture Bros Mars" and the first three videos that pop up), and the spoof of the song runs over a minute long, it is not just a subtle background track.

I leave it up to your discretion, if you think it is not relevant I will leave the page as is.

Best, (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two objections, but they're interrelated. First, there's no source for the statement that was added. Second, there's no indication that this is important enough to be worth mentioning. They're interrelated in that, if there is no secondary source that describes this, if no one else has written about it, that's a big clue that it has not been deemed worth mentioning in a publication. Wikipedia should not be the first place where it's noted; that's what WP:OR is all about.
I think the other unreferenced material should be removed as well; that's why my edit summary says "most of the rest of this is just as bad". I'm a little more reluctant to purge material that's been sitting there unreferenced for a while, at least not without a warning (which I just added) and a reasonable time to fix it. But we certainly shouldn't be adding more.
That's the essence of the note on your talk page; you can add it if it's been noted somewhere reliable, but let's not make a bad section even worse. TJRC (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sack tapping[edit]

The sort of mindless, pointless edit-policing you just demonstrated on the article for Sack-tapping is 100% responsible for the slow death of Wikipedia as anything more than a cut-rate reference source for the lazy. It's no longer growing or living as a meaningful source of contemporary information about the world because people like you will nitpick references for cha'bite, but nobody's fact-checking or updating articles about valuable scientific advances. Thanks for reminding me why I haven't logged in to edit for several years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It's too easy to add a bunch of nonsense to articles if we allow material to be added without sources. When I see it on articles I follow, I revert. If I saw it on one of the "articles about valuable scientific advances" I would revert there, too. The fact that there might be slop elsewhere on the encyclopedia is not basis to excuse adding more slop. TJRC (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

why did you warn me[edit]

what did i do i tryed to help but you warn me ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacktime34 (talkcontribs) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the warning speaks for itself. I see you've deleted it from your talk page, so let me repeat it:
You are continually adding incorrect information and making nonsense edits, apparently deliberately. For example: Villa Park (turning "per annum" into the nonsense "per annul" and forcing American English into an article about a British site); NASA (falsifying an author's name); Maine (falsifying a book title); and apparently Lithuanian Crusade (reverted by another editor). Stop it immediately.
if you really don't understand it, please explain what you don't understand and I'll be happy to clarify. TJRC (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

In forma pauperis–Black's Law citation[edit]

Sorry, I made a mistake. I didn't notice the page number. Also I expected a web link. But it's fine, thank you for reverting that.--Mr. Guye (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I like web sources better, too, since they're more easy to verify; but for legal definitions, there's nothing more authoritative than Black's.
Besides, it brought to my attention that, despite having the translation of the phrase, what it really meant was not in the lede; and your "[why]" edit motivated me to look into that bit as well. TJRC (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Bigfoot vs D. B. Cooper[edit]


You removed my addition on the page due to lack of citation; I figured linking to the director's article that mentioned it would be enough, but I guess not. Fair enough!

So; what would be sufficient? The IMDB page? Rotten Tomatoes? An Amazon page where you can buy the movie? The production company's page, or the official trailer? A RLM video reviewing the video, including footage of it? Or a reddit page with a member of the cast discussing the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aawood (talkcontribs) 20:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

None of these look like they are a WP:RS. Any real review by a recognized (not self-published) source would work. If it hasn't gotten any real reviews, it probably is not sufficiently significant to be listed. TJRC (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I see. So this mention in an oregonlive article probably won't be enough, hmm. How about this mention on page 267 of The Werewolf Filmography, how reliable are mentions in reference books? (That book is a proper published book as far as I can tell, not just a self-published ebook, just in case you wondered.)
In any case, may I suggest you take a look at the director's article? It mentions literally dozens of his films (including this one) which are not just poorly sourced, but completely unsourced! There's a huge amount of material just waiting to be removed! Have fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aawood (talkcontribs) 21:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

reassignment center[edit]

Are you a Simpsons hater ?

Are you a Law & Order's inspector lover ?

Is it not enough ? :

Plot Edna Krabappel is suspended from teaching by Superintendent Chalmers after Bart pulls a prank that leads Edna to slap him twice on the back of the head. Chalmers tells Edna she is suspended with full pay, but will have to report to a rubber room where teachers spend agonizing days waiting until their fates are decided.

Source : wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I like the Simpsons. But your edit is unsourced, and not worth noting in an encyclopedia article about relocation centers. TJRC (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the support with the case law[edit]


I noticed you have left a couple of messages for me - sorry I didn't respond quicker. Thanks for the support and constructive comments. For the case law in Wikipedia, I'm attempting to provide more help. Although there are currently only a few cases in Wikipedia, there are many more cases which have not yet been published. Most case law in Wiki originates from the Supreme Court, but there are many more potential cases from the lower courts. For example, there are typically one or two published cases titled United States v. Williams every year from the Federal appellate courts. A published case presents an opinion which typically establishes a new court precedent; and many of these cases would be appropriate for a Wiki article. So, my nominations to use disambiguation names as the main page is not necessarily for the current case law in wikipedia, but for future additions.

Thanks again for all your contributions to the Wiki community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipermc (talkcontribs) 03:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, nicely done on the Willams cases. I wouldn't RM the DAB pages until you have the infrastructure in place to justify it; I think the timing will change a questionable proposal into a slam-dunk. But that's just me. TJRC (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your observation on the United States v. Williams (1951) page. I mixed my reference 4 and 5 when creating the article. I just fixed by swapping the two references to their correct places and I added the url for the ABA Journal. The reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was directly from the court case on page 73 and not from the ABA article. Thanks for the note. --chipermc (talk) 02:25, 04 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm blocked[edit]

Sir,I am a newly joined editor at Wikipedia,but iam not able to edit anything now,I don't know why?.may I know what's the problem.Am I blocked?? Mohan prasanth m (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you're blocked; but I did ask the page to be protected against new users like yourself from adding to it, to prevent the badly sourced additions you keep making to it. You've been warned about this over and over again, but you continue to make these low-quality edits, Please read the warnings on your talk page, and the links about sourcing; and join the conversation at Talk:List of sex symbols; see the topic "Rampant additions by Mohan prasanth m".
If you do continue to make additions that are not backed up by the sources, I will request that you be blocked. TJRC (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)