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!


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)