User talk:TJRC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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!


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)

your comment on my page[edit]

" You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at July 5"

the other person (Rlbarton) was reverting/undoing my contributions. I was putting it back. Why do you defend that person (Rlbarton) who kept reverting my contribution? What makes him/her the one to decide what is "notable" ? You folks create your own little kingdoms where you get to decide what is notable or not. that seems to go against the idea of wikipedia. I notice he/she removed 2015 soccer game and someone else (Hmlarson) put that back and that is still there, so why was mine treated different then Hmlarson? Czechia2016 (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi-I left a comment on my talk page responding to the comment you had put there-many thanks-RFD (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

July 4[edit]

I kept the death of the girl OUT of the date page, but you reverted me, whereby returning it to the article. I'm sure it was a mistake, just letting you know! ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops, yes. I'm an idiot. i see you already reverted me, thanks very much. TJRC (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh stop it, it was simple mistake. Thanks- All the best! ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

fulfill, fulfil[edit]

Hi there! Re [1], "fulfil" isn't actually a misspelling [2]... --Edcolins (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I've never seen it that way. In any event, the "fullfil" that I corrected is clearly erroneous. TJRC (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverts to edits[edit]

Don't you have anything better to do than go around Wikipedia reverting the edits of others on the flimsy claims of WP:NOTBROKEN? Is it your intention to make Wikipedia as annoying an experience as possible for registered users who make use of tool-tip previews? — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 22:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure: [3]. TJRC (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
To answer Hydrargyrum's question: Apparently not. Eric Cable  !  Talk  18:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Capitalizing title[edit]

Thank you for helping me capitalize the Radiator King page name! That was giving me trouble for weeks. Alexmarie (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad to help. I saw your note on another page, and it was an easy fix. After you've made a sufficient number of Wikipedia edits to be autoconfirmed, your account can move pages to new names. TJRC (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Marcus Barone[edit]

Please do not delete my site, I'm a beginner with the rules, and trying to reference my info clean up the "autobiographical tone" as well as any proper names.

Trying to reference my Recordings from ALL MUSIC. Since I played on so many charted club singles in the 70s and 80's as a session player, I have to track down the defunct label session information as well as the label copy on the disc itself. All MUSIC has helped me do this. Thank you for helping me with this. I noticed some of your sites which are cool and that does help me with the perimeters. Best to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusbarone (talkcontribs) 15:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Aviator call sign[edit]

I concede that my edit did not cite a source. However, neither does the entire article. There are two references at the bottom of the page, yet they don't appear to be cited in-text anywhere in the artcile. The closest anything in the article comes is providing a link to the subject's Wikipedia page. However, some sections don't even do this, such as the "Spuds" call sign. Ergo, it seems ironic to delete my edit for lacking references, yet allow the entire page to remain in the same state. If you'd like, I can link the edit to those with existing Wikipedia pages. Otherwise, it seems I have done no different than other editors for that page. Granitebees (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You're right about the rest of it. That's why I indicated in my edit summary, "this section is already poor, let's not make it worse", and added the {{unsourced section}}. If it stays so poorly referenced, those should be deleted as well. I generally 1) clean up unsourced stuff when I notice it and it's been on notice for at least a year or two; and 2) revert the addition of edits that make the problem even worse. Your edit, I think, was in that second category.
And your point about lack of footnotes is a very good one; I've just added a tag for that as well. TJRC (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I've taken a first cut at adding some references. If you have any, please feel free to add some more. In the process, I cleaned up the non-specific sourcing issue. One of the two cited references was completely unreliable; and the other only supported two call signs out of the entire article. I turned that into footnotes. TJRC (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I actually did have a source that would have covered the entire section of the Battlestar Galactica callsigns, including the extant ones. Unfortunately, I just found out that the site has since gone under. There is a replacement, but it's nowhere near as reliable or in-depth as the first. However, I do remember viewing one episode of the series where the pilots don't appear, but their callsigns are listed. Would that work as a reference? Granitebees (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
If the site has gone under, it likely was not a WP:RS (although it's possible). You may still be able to access its content via the Wayback Machine (see Help:Using the Wayback Machine). BSG should be an easy one to find in reliable sources, since so much has been written about it. I was planning on taking a crack at that one after Top Gun, since it's low-hanging fruit.
Generally, the episodes themselves are not acceptable sources, since they're not third-party sources. It's not a matter of accuracy; limiting entries to those that have been referred to in third-party sources has the effect of making sure an article doesn't turn into a magnet for every fan's addition of their favorite Simpsons episode or the like. Really, the idea is: if no one outside of Wikipedia has deemed it worth writing about, Wikipedia should not be the first place it gets written about. TJRC (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I had considered that. I was actually going to use the episode's page on IMDB as it has the episode, season, and even the callsigns themselves in the quotes section. However, if this is not acceptable, I can try using the Wayback Machine to find the website. It may take some time though, as I don't know when the website was taken down. Granitebees (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've got BSG covered, using a published book as a reference. TJRC (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

West Sussex Record Office[edit]

Your prod has inspired me to expand the article so clearly the process works. They have some interesting collections. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Nicely done. TJRC (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Paul McCartney[edit]

Hi, thanks for the post on my talk page. I will be right upfront and admit I'm not sure if this is the right way to answer you (or if I should have done it my talk page or what have you) I am in the "fairly avid reader but not an editor" class of Wikipedian.

Perhaps you can help me (and I do want to assure you that the things you were pointing out to me as far as editing boo boos and the like were merely pure ignorance on my part, and not meant to be malicious at all :)

The gist of what I was trying to do goes back to a post I added to the talk page a while back (objecting to the inclusion of Peter Brown's quote of Paul overdubbing all of Ringo's parts, for reasons that I stated in my original post).

The problem was that while everyone who chimed in basically agreed (though the thread veered off topic for a bit), no one actually changed the article (and the statement in question is pretty inflamatory, not mention just plain old wrong when weighed against the mountain of evidence that exists to the contrary). So since it seemed to be agreed that the line in question should be pulled (no one objected to my recollection), I went to do it, but saw that the page was locked (or semi-protected or whatever state it's in now). I tried to do the diligent and make an account so I could do it, but ran into a host of problems in trying to do so, so I thought the better of it and thought I would let those more expert than I take care of it.

But no one ever did, which is why I occasionally added to my original post on the talk page (e.g., "would someone please take care of this since I can't?"). Since by now that seems to have gotten buried a few talk pages back, I thought I'd repost it (though I admittedly did that in a state of I forgot to sign my post, and if I had let myself calm down a bit I wouldn't have just reposted everything, which I'm sure is frowned upon, not to mention just being rude! :)

My only intent was for someone to take care of that edit since I couldn't do it myself (unless someone REALLY has a compelling reason to keep it, but like I said the folks that chimed in agreed it should be taken out).

Are you able to help in that regard? Just trying to do the right thing (and setting the Beatles record straight as it were), I'm glad you intervened and hopefully you can help or point me in the right direction (and if there was a more proper way to reply to you please let me know that as well :)

Thanks! Tim70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Tim

Please read WP:OUTING[edit]

Do not research people off Wikipedia and then post information on Wikipedia. ~ GB fan 22:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. I didn't think of that as outing since the individual was using his actual name; but looking at WP:OUTING, I see that it qualifies. TJRC (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions on American Manufacturing Council[edit]

Thank you for all of your work on this article and especially the addition of the |data-sort-value= to the table.

Can we create a default sort for the table?[edit]

How can we create a default sort for a table? If so, shouldn't how can we make it default to: Last Name?

The docs basically say, sort your table in an editor, unless...I'm missing something. --CmdrDan (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that just means, put your wikitext in the default sort order you want. I'd suggest re-ordering the rows by last-name. TJRC (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done, I think. [4] TJRC (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Goop (company) page[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your comment after reverting my edit on the Goop (company) page. The page seems to have multiple issues relating to NPOV. No one could dispute the controversies regarding the company's products, but the writing style and structure do not coincide with multiple guidelines at WP:ACHIEVE NPOV, and appear to violate WP:CRIT guidelines under sections like WP:CORG. It seems changing the Controversies section to some form of “Criticism” section, as discussed here, may begin to resolve the issue. Happy to hear your thoughts. (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sad Astronaut[edit]

Thank you. I have cited my addition to the relevant page. Out of curiosity, why did you single out my addition, and not the two popular culture references immediately preceding mine that had no sources? Ckent007 (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ckent007, primarily because I caught yours as it was being added. The other ones have been there a while. I'm slow to remove existing bad entries, because they're sort of the status quo, and I have no easy way of letting the contributor know about it (other then spending 20 minutes poring over the edit history of the article). But when I see one being added, like the one you added, I can give the contributor the heads-up to add a reference.
You'll note that I added a {{refimprove section}} template to give a general notice that the other things need references too. Sometimes I'll come across an article that has been tagged this way (either by me or by someone else) and if it's been there a long enough time (say a year or more), I'll start deleting the unreferenced stuff, too.
But I am generally more slow to overtly delete something than I am to revert its being added. TJRC (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Digital Millennium Copyright Act[edit]

Hello, TJRC. I have been thinking for awhile, but it has been a month, so I feel like I should explain my edit. Basically, the second and third paragraph had the following style for most sentences: (First) person(s)/organization, (Next) position, and (finally) their statement. To me, it looked liked several groups had attempted to write pro- or anti-1201 messages when I first read it, especially since the fourth paragraph has a number of organizations lumped together as having made a statement. I understand now that the section was made by a single user, so it is unlikely to be an advertisement and is just an issue over how it seems to be read. So, thank you for reverting me. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for explaining. TJRC (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Colwidth / reflist[edit]

Hey. Just letting you know "colwidth" in the reflist template is obsolete, per Template:Reflist. "30em" is also obsolete since {{reflist}} on its own will now create columns automatically depending on the user's screen size. Thanks. --Jennica / talk 16:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Jennica; but is this in reference to one of my edits? When I add {{reflist}}, I generally do so without parameters.
But I have seen a number of updates to the template's transclusion, and was wondering what was behind it, so thanks for satisfying my curiosity. TJRC (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I tracked it down on this edit. If I am looking at it wrong, I'm sorry. I wasn't placing blame, just informing. :) --Jennica / talk 17:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I just realized it might be the dab solver that did it? --Jennica / talk 17:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. I was just posting this before an edit conflict with your addition: Well, that's interesting... That was an edit using DAB Solver. I wonder if I also hit the citation expander button on that edit, because I see in addition to resolving the two ABC and The Telegraph disambiguations, it also made some other non-DAB changes. I hadn't even noticed the changes to the reflist template. That's not something I would intentionally change. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really familiar with any of those tools (I've never used them before) but I found another edit from another user where the same thing happened. I can't tell if they're using the other tool you mentioned. --Jennica / talk 17:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Interesting; that's also a dabsolver edit. I'm just curious enough to look into this. TJRC (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I let the dab solver creator know it might be that tool. --Jennica / talk 17:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable source[edit]

What are you, a fucking idiot?

I need a source for 1 + 1 = 2?

Of course, if someone put some left-wing shit like, "Trump has an IQ of negative five and consorts with Satanists," you wouldn't demand any sources at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:302:fb9b:34e0:d9ac:2922:98a3 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2017‎ (UTC)

This edit is not equivalent to 1 + 1 = 2. It needs a source. TJRC (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


Dear, I would like to contribute to this page and brand's story but want to make sure that everything is as it should be from your point of view. Please, could you revise the written and see what is appropriate and what is not.

History[edit source] FOREO initiated operations in 2013,[5] and in three years secured a presence in department stores, perfumery chains and beauty e-commerce operators across the globe such as Douglas, Sephora, Harvey Nichols, Neiman Marcus, Barneys, Bergdorf Goodman, Net-a-Porter, Selfridges, Globus and Jelmoli. Paul Peros is the CEO, and has been with the company since its founding. Paul Peros started his professional career in Water & Environmental Technologies as a Watergy Business Manager after a BA in physics from UCLA and MBA from IMD Business School. From there he joined GEA Management Consulting where he managed projects around the globe for 12 years. FOREO opened FOREO Inc. in 2013 and FOREO Adria in 2014. FOREO opened a flagship store in Paris in 2016. Products[edit source] FOREO’s first products[6] were the LUNA, a sonic facial cleansing brush and anti-aging device made from silicone, alongside the LUNA mini, a sonic facial cleansing brush for different skin-types. In January 2014, FOREO revealed the ISSA sonic electric toothbrush at CES. [4]In 2016 the product range expanded to include the IRIS eye massager, FOREO Day and Night face cleansers, and in July 2017 FOREO launched the ESPADA Acne-Clearing Blue Light Pen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CookieA5 (talkcontribs) 09:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


Dear sir, I have little interest in putting fake family history on these pages. Andrey Tupolev Andrey Tupolev was born into a large family on 10 November 1888 in the village of Pustomazovo near the city of Kimry in Russia’s Tver Region. His father Nikolay Ivanovich Tupolev was a notary at the Tver Region District Court. His mother Anna Vasil’evna Lisicyna was a housewife. She spoke fluently French and German. Mark Elvin Born 1938 in Cambridge but the life I remember was in San Francisco; my father sent me and my mother, who was American, to live there with my grandparents, probably in 1939; my mother was a clinical psychologist P S Y C H O L O G I S T took a job in the juvenile court there; in due course this turned into the assignment from hell; she was amazingly calm about it but only talked of it to me when I was about twenty-five. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakenicholson (talkcontribs) 20:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding the problem. Based on your comments here, it sounds like you actually may have sources for your edits. The problem is that you are not citing those sources. You can't just add stuff to Wikipedia, even if you know it to be true, unless you can show where you got the information. Veriability is a core principle of Wikipedia, and making edits without providing sources undermines that. Please see the Wikipedia pages referenced in the notes you've been getting on your talk page. TJRC (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Explain how adding his family history can be defined as vandalism, I think you are just being a control freak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakenicholson (talkcontribs) 18:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You're right; it's not vandalism. I used the wrong template. I have corrected that. But you are making edits without providing reliable sources, and you need to stop doing that.
Reasonable minds can differ in whether information on family history should go into a biographical article. I think it depends on the article, and I have no strong opinion on the one you were editing. I'm most definitely not calling that edit vandalism.
BUT: if you're going to make those edits: 1) include a reliable source. This is what's been explained to you over and over again, and you refuse to look at what a reliable source is and to make your edit only if you have one. You continually either cite no source at all, or cite a source that does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing, such as blogs or another Wikipedia article. You just can't do that. You're undermining the reliability of the encyclopedia.
And 2) If you do start providing reliable sources, use the <ref></ref> tags, instead of just throwing a URL into the bottom of the article. That will make it clear to a later reader that there actually is a source being cited for what you're adding. If this were your only error, I would just fix it, but since you haven't been using reliable sources in the first place, that's not an option.
Really, this is not that hard to do right. It doesn't have to be perfect. To get started, please have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners without using templates. TJRC (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


I received a message about a revert from a edit to the disambiguation page for "text"... But I have never edited that page and this is my laptop which I am the only one to use... (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It may be someone else had your IP address. The edit is this one: [7]. You can see it was from nine months ago, so likely the IP address was assigned to a different user using the same ISP at the time. The message left for you indicates that: "If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices."
In any case, if you didn't make the edits, don't worry about it. TJRC (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

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

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

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

Maureen Fleming[edit]


Thanks for your suggestions. I have gone to original sources on as many of the articles as possible on Maureen Fleming. And I have used the 'references' you suggested.

However, many facts in the original article you continue to revert to are simply incorrect and are defamatory towards the subject. Please stop contesting facts that are brought to light in the article through my well researched edits.


Christopher Odo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Odo (talkcontribs) 23:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything to support your defamation claim, but in any event, the right approach to that is to simply excise it, not to substitute gushing praise. I won't wholesale revert you, but you need to address the massive issues you are adding with respect to WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK and WP:INDEPENDENT. For now, I'll simply tag the article, but I'll go in and begin excising any materials not brought up to snuff in a week or so. TJRC (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi TJRC, Many of the references from the Boston Globe, Boston Herald and Cleveland Free Press are simply not available online any longer, only on the website of the subject. I am planning to purchase access to these back articles and screen shot them as references. Do you have a suggestion as to how to use a screen shot as an accurate reference? It may take time for it to show up on Google as a link if I upload it to google drive. Is this a viable plan or do you know a better way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Odo (talkcontribs) 20:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


Below are the Boston Globe archived articles referenced. These articles are only viewable if you subscribe, so, I subscribed and obtained pdfs of the archived articles and uploaded them to my google drive as well as made them public on google. They should show up on google soon. I do not know how long it takes for this process to complete. As I was able to obtain pdfs of the Boston Globe archived articles, I did not need to make screen shots.

Next week I will research the Boston Herald archives. Thank you.

April 23, 2017 - review – by Jeffrey Gantz – B. Madonna Maureen Fleming mesmerizes in 'B. Madonna'

November 3, 2007 – review – by Thea Singer – Waters of Immortality Fleming's metamorphosis both magical and elegant

February 20, 2004 – pre performance article by Suzanne Sataline – Decay of the Angel CELESTIAL NAVIGATIONS CHOREOGRAPHER MAUREEN FLEMING'S `DECAY OF THE ANGEL' TAKES FLIGHT

Feb 24, 2002 – pre-performance article - by Catherine Foster – After Eros CHILDHOOD ACCIDENT SHAPES CHOREOGRAPHER'S `EROS' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Odo (talkcontribs) 21:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC) (Christopher Odo (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC))

Hi, Christopher Odo. I haven't been very available this past week due to constraints on my time, so sorry for not earlier replying.
I think it's dangerous to rely on Fleming's own site for reviews of Fleming, even if the reviews were previously published elsewhere. Flemming and her management obviously have a vested interest in including only the more favorable reviews, so you're going to imbuing the Wikipedia article with a systemic positive bias, which is inherently violative of WP:NOPV. It's best to ignore Fleming's website completely, and simply look directly at what others have published about here. Fleming is expected to be cherry-pikcing reviews; but Wikipedia should not be doing the same, nor adopting Fleming's own cherry-picking. TJRC (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

About SilkAir Flight 185[edit]

(Regarding this edit)

"The aircraft was built by Boeing in the United States, and the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), under lead investigator Greg Feith, participated in the investigation of the crash."

I am not an expert in English but is this sentence grammatically correct ?

There are two subjects to the verb "participated". But the first subject is a sentence itself of the form subject + verb + complement ("The aircraft was built by Boeing in the United States") !


--AXRL (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This is moot, because after making the factual correction, I reworded the passage in a subsequent edit to avoid the awkwardness; but yes, it's grammatically correct.
There is only one subject to the verb "participated": "US National Transportation Safety Board". I don't see how you count two. TJRC (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
ok, thank you, I now understand my fault !
--AXRL (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Partition and secession in California[edit]

TJRC, I saw you managed the discussion of merging the New California article with Partition and secession in California. Thanks for doing that. Do you think Six Californias, another article about a secession proposal, should also be merged with Partition and secession in California? Six Californias caused a bit of a stir in 2014, but it all came to nothing. It failed to get enough signatures to be on the ballot. I think Six Californias should be merged or at least shortened considerably. It doesn't merit taking up so much space on Wikipedia. Chisme (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably not. It was higher-profile, and had serious financial backing, and got as far as an actual initiative and analysis by the state legislative analyst. The article is long for an article of this type, but it's not fluff. On an admittedly cursory review it appears to be well-researched and well-sourced. I don't see a lot of benefit in losing that information. I would probably !vote against a merge, but I don't have very strong feelings on it.
To tell you the truth, I wouldn't have proposed the merger on New California, either. I think the merge was a good idea, and !voted in favor of it, but I didn't feel strongly enough about it to propose the merge; I just opened the discussion once I saw the proposal, so there would be a decision one way of the other and we wouldn't have a hatnote on the article for an interminable period. TJRC (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

United States v. DuBay[edit]

Hello! in reference to United States v. DuBay. I'd like to get it up to Good Article class, but don't really know what improvements need to be made. Thoughts? Eddie891 Talk Work 22:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I haven't been involved in a lot of GA nominations or assessments. TJRC (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: George P. Kazen[edit]

For the moment, I have reverted your edit on the Southern District of Texas list. Until FJC Bio confirms he has truly retired, he should be listed as inactive. If he has truly fully retired, it might take FJC Bio two or three days to be updated. Safiel (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't feel extremely strongly on this, but we have a reliable source saying he's retired. Is there any basis for the position that the FJC bio website is the exclusive source for this information? TJRC (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
This is an issue that has tripped us up a number of times in the past. Scores of Federal Judges were listed as retired, when it turned out they were actually merely inactive. The problem is that the term "retired" has a colloquial, as well as legal usage. The judge himself may have announced his retirement. But it MAY have been simply in the sense that he is no longer showing up for work OR it MAY have been in the sense that he truly retired and thus terminated his judicial service. The only source that can truly verify that fact is FJC Bio. Simply as a matter of the utmost caution, I have been listing judges as inactive, until and unless FJC Bio lists them as retired. If FJC Bio is updated to show him as retired, it is easy enough to appropriately update the article at that time. FJC Bio tends to have a lag of two or three days on updating for deaths or retirements. The best way to put it is that I am erring on the side of caution. Safiel (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Great, I'll let it sit then. A couple days' delay won't hurt anything. TJRC (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Update Just to let you know, he has formally retired per the now updated FJC Bio and I have updated all the appropriate articles accordingly. Safiel (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know; and for your courtesy in general on this discussion. TJRC (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Your welcome. Safiel (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

US Attorneys[edit]


I see your comment was asking for proof of confirmation for Cullen, Hur and Joseph. Yes, they were reported out of committee on 3/22/18, as noted here.

That then placed them on the Executive Calendar as follows: Link


  • 762 1656 Thomas T. Cullen, of Virginia, to be United

States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia for the term of four years, vice John P. Fishwick, Jr., resigned. Mar 22, 2018

  • 763 1209 Robert K. Hur, of Maryland, to be United

States Attorney for the District of Maryland for the term of four years, vice Rod J. Rosenstein, term expired. Mar 22, 2018

  • 764 1660 David C. Joseph, of Louisiana, to be United

States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana for the term of four years, vice Stephanie A. Finely, resigned. Mar 22, 2018

Their Executive Calendar Number on the aforementioned link would then be 762, 763 and 764.

According to the Senate Periodical Press Gallery dated March 22, 2018: The following nominations were considered en bloc:
Cal. #762 Cal. #763 Cal. #764 The nominations were confirmed, en bloc, by Voice Vote.

According to, each nominee has been confirmed by voice vote per the following documentation:

Feel free to double check if you'd like. It took a lot of research and double checking on my part, but from my standpoint, I see them as being confirmed, although not "officially" sworn in yet.

Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk)

Snickers2686, Great; no objection to adding the confirmation with that source. (On the article I'd reverted, there was no source). Then once he's sworn you can also document him as the actual position-holder. TJRC (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Monkey selfie[edit]

Please note that was from August 2014, not July 2017. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, but just as importantly, the basic claim in the sentence, that it was not placed in the public domain by being posted on Commons, is wrong. TJRC (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Michael Collins article[edit]

Hey there. I just looked and saw you are one of the top contributors to the Collins article. I plan to take that article (and Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Apollo 11) to FA by the 50th anniversary of the moon landing (next year). You are more than welcome to help if you would like, just wanted to let you know I plan to edit the article significantly from its current state to get it to FA. Cheers! Kees08 (Talk) 07:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That's surprising. I had not thought I'd contributed that much to it, apart from the occasional vandalism reversion. I'm quite the admirer of Collins, so applaud your efforts to tighten up the article. TJRC (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
It could have been that you had so many anti-vandalism edits that you have the highest edit count to the article. Sounds good, I will continue working on the article, thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 17:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Mutual assured destruction[edit]

Re your comment on my talk page:
Information icon Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Mutual assured destruction, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That entire section is unreferenced and could be described as speculation. If you delete my addition, you should delete the entire section. However I personally think that it should be left in as they are mostly fairly reasonable, and this way if someone with a good knowledge of the literature about the subject ever edits the page he'll have as many points as possible to add references to. I understand there is a desire to be pedantic and only accept referenced points. However again in that case you should delete the entire section which has already been flagged up as "This section does not cite any sources". Boiledspaghetti (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that, after ten years, it would be okay to start removing the unreferenced material. To the extent that you mean that, if an article already has problems, it's okay to make those problems worse, I disagree with that. TJRC (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Help! New article "Boulevard of Sabana Grande"[edit]


Can you review the article (proofreading)? I wrote the article in the Spanish version of Wikipedia. I have already read the article, however.

Thank you in advance. QuinteroP (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)QuinteroP


Hi TJRC, thanks for the heads up re my Superstar edits, apologies there, still working on it - I was in the middle of working on it last night when my laptop unexpectedly lost power and blitzed the work I had been doing - currently rectifying that as we speak, please bear with me. Thanks. Dunks (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Us Census estimates[edit]

i got the population from us census quickfacts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitopavlovivit (talkcontribs) 03:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Then cite them. TJRC (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
how do i cite sources on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitopavlovivit (talkcontribs) 15:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I gave you two links in my note to you: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. TJRC (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Why was my edit removed?[edit]

Hello. Just curious as to why my edit of the "At This Moment" page was removed by you. I'm open to contructive critism and am still learning how this goes. It was my first time editing a wiki page. Probably won't do it often, and maybe never again. But I'm a Jimmy Fallon fan and thus the reason for the edit. My reasoning behind adding his cover of the song was based partly on the fact that Seth McFarlane's cover of it is mentioned. If McFarlane's cover "qualifies", then why not Fallons? I thought it was a fair thing to do. Did I simply need to include a link to the video of the cover? I could do that. Thanks for helping me in my learning process here. Apadams360 (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I indicated it in the edit summary: " 1) unsourced; 2) does not meet WP:SONGCOVER." The first one means you didn't provide a reliable source. The second means that the addition does not appear to meet the requirements the community has established for indicating the importance of the song performance.
I have no reason to believe that McFarlane's cover of it should be included either. But just because an article has problems does not mean that it's a good thing to make those problems worse. Instead, it should be cleaned up. The inclusion of inappropriate material in an article is never a sound basis for including additional inappropriate material. (See WP:OTHERCRAP for the same idea in a slightly different context.)
You'll note I also tagged the article as poorly referenced. That's a first stage in cleaning up existing problems. Most editors, if they see inappropriate (unsourced, etc.) longstanding material in an article will tag it for cleanup, giving other editors who believe it should be kept a chance to clean it up; adding references, establishing notability, etc. But if they catch it as it's being added, it's generally removed, as yours was. TJRC (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Addition to Project songs[edit]

Just curious about what prompted your addition to WP:SONGCOVER of "or the mere availability of the version as downloadable or streaming audio or video". It is obvious – being available does not make a version of a song noteworthy and the section wording should already make this clear. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It was seeing one too many additions to an article citing a youtube video or an iTunes listing. TJRC (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe lack of English skills is the problem. I don't think adding numerous examples of bad practices is helpful. I'll revert your addition; of course you may take it up on the talk page, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I am willing to discuss this if you have a clearance. Would need to see evidence of this though, but the drive in question is under lock and key as mentioned due to risks if I ever permit it to be leaked online.

Interestingly it verifies pretty much everything Lazar said was either wrong or incomplete, the "E115" seems to refer to 115In or some other composite where 115 is actually the specific alloy composition used. I did some more research and found that there is a low melting point high entropy alloy that has possible metamaterial qualities, made from five different elements mixed in precise proportions of which two are bismuth and magnesium, when formed it is "activated" somehow by cooling in a strong electric field similar to the method used for making piezoelectric components. Possibly related to Art's Parts?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? I don't recognize this as related to any of my edits. TJRC (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

user is asking that his or her autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted[edit]

Orologio verde.svg
This user's request to have autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
TJRC (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Kkits23". The reason given for Kkits23's block is: "Promotion / advertising-only account: Here to promote a photographer named Sajid Shahid.".

Accept reason:

I see no significant overlap between the two accounts. Autoblock lifted. Yamla (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Erdos-bacon number[edit]

Hi maybe you can help me understand something. You reverted my edit by saying that having a finite number is something rare. From what I can gather almost any person that has co-published an academic paper will be able to calculate their erdos number. Most people who publish start off by publishing with their professors who will have published lots and lots of papers with lots and lots of people and will have published with their professors when they started, etc etc so it is almost certain that any publishing author will be able to calculate their finite erdos number. Any person who has worked in cinema or television will be able to calculate their bacon number and it will not be high. I myself have a bacon number of 3 because I was an extra on a television program with Sean Connery who is a 2. How rare is it to have a finite Erdos Bacon number? Dom from Paris (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. What I said was: "Erdos-bacon numbers are notable, and are sufficiently rare that it's not trivia to note when someone has such a number, particularly one of the lower ones." Finiteness doesn't enter into it, and it's addressed to the more rare Erdos-Bacon number, not to the Erdos number or the Bacon number (both of which are common-place; it's the EB number that's rare). TJRC (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
But how rare? There must be ak awful lot of welle known academics (especially ones with pages here) who have appeared in documentaries or had bit parts or extra work and so will have a Bacon number and so a Erdos Bacon number' Probably what's rarer is actors that have co-authored academic papers but not that rare either. Can you say how rare this is? Dom from Paris (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The answer to this question bears no relationship to the question of whether a properly-sourced mention of an E-B number is suitable for inclusion in biographies in principle. Which, of course it is -- and just like everything else needs to be decided on principles of valid sourcing, due weight, etc. Removing the long primary source chains from biographical articles is an obvious yes; removing from Natalie Portman is straightforward; but keeping at Daniel Kleitman or Danica McKellar (the latter, incidentally, is the rare person who would reach WP's notability standards only for her work involving mathematics and also for her non-mathematics related acting) is also straightforward. --JBL (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
What JBL said. It's hard to fit a cogent discussion into an edit summary. I'm explaining my edit summary, but that doesn't get into the necessary detail of a full discussion. TJRC (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)