User talk:TJRC/Archive2

Elizabeth K
It is extremely unlikely that her husband will be elected president, therfore your inclusion violates speculation of future events. Please refrain from adding this material when it involves a future event that has almost zero chance of occuring in the future. Arzel (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You disagree? That is not a very good argument.  Can you at least read WP:CRYSTAL which states quite clearly.  Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.  Arzel (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Font
Hi TJRC, thank you for your message on the my page. Agree a definition, and a see also link to Computer font should do it. I hope. CApitol3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Pop Shop Gallery & Stuido
A tag has been placed on The Pop Shop Gallery & Stuido requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. &Lambda;ua&int; Wi  se  (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

James Watson link
The red link I added to James Watson (DNA: The Secret of Life) was actually an article I was just about to save, but my FireFox has now frozen up completely such that I can't even get the text out of it (or close it!). FYI however, the red links page you linked to says I should link to a page that I intend to create, so don't be too overzealous removing these things (sometimes I also create a talk page before I've saved the page, for example, and some articles get deleted before the author finishes fleshing them out). Sadly I'm too annoyed at losing the article that I probably won't be recreating it for some time, so I'll leave it blank, and probably only add the link again after I've saved it. Richard001 (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Kucinich
Yikes, thank you for finding the quote. I'm not sure if he echoed her statement but the ref has her quote so that's better anyway. Not sure what I had seen but my apologies and thanks for catching it. Benjiboi 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ronnie Lake
I have nominated Ronnie Lake, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Ronnie Lake. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Redfarmer (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoring deleted articles
Hi TJRC - you wrote: ''Hi, Grutness. I saw your comment on Articles for deletion/Ronnie Lake that very little is lost on Wikipedia, even if the article is deleted. I know that's true when text is deleted from an article, but is that also the case where the article itself is deleted? Can a mere editor obtain the text of a deleted article?''

No, but it's one of the extra tools that admins have. If the character does turn out to be a regular character, find a friendly admin (like me), explain the situation and point them at the AFD debate. Chances are they'd be willing to restore the deleted material. Generally the only time that deleted articles are wiped completely is for legal reasons (e.g., if the article was libellous). Grutness...wha?  00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

nag boxes
I see you're a fan of those big ugly nag boxes, even when they've been sitting atop articles for more than a year without causing anybody to actually do anything to improve the article.

That's my argument against them: They are often used as an alternative to improvement - somebody sees a crummy article, slaps a nag box atop it, and then feels like they've helped, thus removing their incentive to actually do some editing.

Aside from boxes which are needed to warn readers to take extreme caution (e.g., NPOV) they do more harm than good. Lesser subjects, such as the need for in-bound links or more references, should be put on the Talk page. (In my opinion, of course - many disagree.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

track
2/13

Images
Oops! Sorry about that, I just checked a single image for which you added a fair use rationale, and thought you had uploaded them. Sorry again! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be more explicit, I noticed you added the non-free rationale to Image:Goto Maki April07-1-.jpg, but the image itself doesn't have a copyright tag. Sorry again (I should have guessed there was something wrong in what I was doing when I noticed you were a lawyer :-P). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: FUR to keep Betacommandbot away
Hi and thanks for the information, I will use those templates next time I upload an image of a single or album cover. Lol yeah Betacommandbot sucks. Lillygirl (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tomboy (band)
A tag has been placed on Tomboy (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ridernyc (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tomboy (band)
Hi TJRC - you wrote:
 * I had an article that I wrote last night deleted out from under me based on a claim of non-notability. This is frustrating, I've lost all the work. You've told me before that a deleted article can be retrieved by a friendly admin. Can you do that and get me a copy? I'd like to edit it in my sandbox, address the notability issue and replace it. If it gets eventually deleted after a discussion on the merits, I'm fine with that, but this was way unilateral. Gheezh, I know there's "speedy deletion," but it's pretty absurd to delete something just a few hours after it's created, advising the creator that he can use the hangon template, but deleting it anyway so that's not possible. And this was deleted overnight. There was never any chance to respond. If this is the practice, what's the point of the hangon template?

I've put the article at User:TJRC/Tomboy (band) - you should be able to work on it there without problems. As to hangon, unfortunately there's often not much lag between a CSD template going on and someone coming along and deleting an article. I suppose there should be a lag of say, 24 hours, but often articles are so obviously deletable that there's never been an official time lag put in place. the downside of that, of course, is that sometimes articles get deleted simply because two editors (a non-admin applying the notice and an admin doing the actual deletion) independently think an article is speediable. As for it being overnight, that's one of the things about WP being worldwide. It may have been overnight for you, but not for the other editors involved. Hangon does work, but unfortunately there's ot always the chance to use it. :/ Grutness...wha?  21:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Helen Keller photo
The copyright law and commentary pages I've read don't call out this exception, other than the vague "unless it was already in the public domain" exception.

Did the old law cover photographs which were never published prior to 1998?

Please update-and-improve any Wikipedia and Wikimedia copyright-related FAQs, with pointers to the old laws and any relevant case law, so others don't fall into this same confusion in the future. Thanks.

Oh, and I'm very glad to be wrong on this. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to look at and improve Public domain. Since the page is a Wikipedia guideline, please discuss it first. I've already opened a discussion. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Permanent link archive method
FYI: that's an accepted method of archiving, see: this. ATren (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

prefix
Ok. Pandacomics (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

D. B. Cooper
Thanks. You've done some good work with the article, as well. I'm thinking of bringing the article to FAC within the week. It's pretty good right now, but it still needs some more references (Cooper vane section is unreferenced, as are some other chunks of text). Feel free to lend a hand! Best, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for backing me up on "Scotland Yard" in the D.B. Cooper article. If we want to call it a headquarters, fine, but then it is the headquarters of the territorial police force for Greater London - that makes it a law enforcement agency.Harry Yelreh (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Date format
Please do not change date formats in links (e.g. as you did with Brattleboro); since it's linked, it doesn't matter how it is typed, since it displays according to preferences. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Crucifixion (Stainer)
Hi, thanks for the note. No, I have no immediate plans to create the page, though I think it would be valuable. I sang in "The Crucifixion" on Tuesday evening, hence my heightened interest. The link I used was, for consistency, the same as in the article on John Stainer.

Brother Francis (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple - I was doing new page patrol and it caught my eye. (I have a recording of the piece and love it dearly, hence my clicking on the article.) --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 18:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Byline on Arthur C. Clarke
Oh, thanks for the notice. That's kinda weird, since we don't do that for the other pictures (as fas as I know), but well... :) -- lucasbfr  talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 10:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of NASA template in Talk:Apollo 11
Hi, I see you deleted the NASA template from Talk:Apollo 11. Please note that the outcome of the tfd was redirect to Template:PD-USGov-NASA, not delete. I'm correcting it in this article, but if you're deleting it in others, please go back to your deletions and replace with the correct template. Otherwise valuable information is being lost. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PD-USGov-NASA is for images, not text. I don't think we need to include this attribution template directly onto articles, especially since that text is open to change from people outside NASA. NASA should of course be attributed in the edit summary whenever we copy from them. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The RFD has been Templates_for_deletion. When it closes, check the logs for March 30 and later.  Please stand by to undo or modify your previous changes.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

van Rossum vs. Van Rossum
Regarding your edits to Python (programming language), please re-read the page you yourself cited (http://www.python.org/~guido/):

"Spelling: my last name is two words, and I'd like keep it that way, the spelling on some of my credit cards notwithstanding. Dutch spelling rules dictate that when used in combination with my first name, 'van' is not capitalized: 'Guido van Rossum'. But when my last name is used alone to refer to me, it is capitalized, for example: 'As usual, Van Rossum was right.'"

Note the last sentence. In all of the occurrences of "Van Rossum," "Van" should be capitalized; all the occurrences of "Guido van Rossum," it should not. Tlesher (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Alphonso Jackson
I've reverted your revert of the resignation statement in the section Alphonso Jackson, for two reasons: – Wdfarmer (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The statement's reference repeats the tag used in the introduction, and so creates a redundant entry in the "References" section. If the reference is to be used more than once, it should be given a name and referred to by that name in subsequent references; see WP:FOOT.
 * 2) Until there is a verifiable connection between the alleged conflict of interest and the resignation, any talk about the resignation has no place in that section.

House Report 94-1476
Thanks! Would love to have some more proofreaders inspect the page scans — see s:Index:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 if you’ve got any free time. Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The color key for the index page is explained at s:Template:PageQuality. In brief: green = all done; yellow = probably OK, just needs another pair of eyes to look it over and spot any problems (and promote it to green if there are none); red = major formatting and cleanup still to do (generally these are still raw OCR output — and furthermore, the remaining red pages are all part of a section of the document where the OCR’ing is especially poor due to the nature of the original content). If you want to go after the low-hanging fruit, go with the yellow pages; I’ll be tackling the red ones a few at a time.  Thanks for any help you have the time to offer, and I’m pleased to hear of your interest in the work.  I teach Copyright also, and it’s rather surprising that this report hasn’t been freely available online before now.  (I’ll probably turn to the 1975 Senate report and the 1961 Register of Copyrights report when this one is complete.) Tarmstro99 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

austin
Hi. I alleviated some of the problems that you had here. I like seperate pages, but that's just me, so I didn't directly respond to your proposal. But what does bother me is that the it doesn't redirect to the city. I initiated a discussion on this issue just below that discussion that you initiated. Please tell me what you think. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick game of Whilst
Re Paul McCartney - that would be me, that it would! ;~) I'm afraid I still use whilst in ordinary conversation (and thus my writing). You may or may not be pleased to know that my article writing has somewhat reduced over the last year, so the presence of archaic Brit-Eng need not be corrupting the readership of the United States... Cheers! LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indubitably! LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked  "Should the addition of this box [example right] ''be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" '' (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

copyright
According to answers.com, copyright, verb, means "To secure a copyright for." Under current law, a copyright is secured upon creation. Put another way, works are automatically copyrighted. So, use of "copyrighted" or "owns the copyright to" is a matter of style and not necessarily correctness. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Classical music in popular culture
After over a month without any activity, I've moved Talk:Classical music in popular culture to User:Edgarde/Classical music in popular culture. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.

Anti-copyright
Hi, I see you are interested in copyright issues, and I wondered if you might be up for improving the anti-copyright article, it basically needs some properly cited research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SasiSasi (talk • contribs) 22:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

HGARC
No Problem. I wouldn't call it discussion, as such, but hopefully they stop once their block expires. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

DIY translation is OR?
Could you please point out the source of this policy? Thanks. --Mongol (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting this. I've updated that article with the original content in note. --Mongol (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit to 867-5309/Jenny
It was hilarious and surprising to see my name on my watchlist when you added back my Jenny page. Dunno if it's gonna stay (and I don't really care), but seeing that was a really odd moment for me. Hehe --Darkdan (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

random/at random
Hi,

Could you explain why you changed random/at random to arbitrary/arbitrarily? Here are the relevant definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary:

"B. adj. (from phr. at random: see A. 3)."

1. a. Not sent or guided in a special direction; having no definite aim or purpose; made, done, occurring, etc., at haphazard. 1655 FULLER Ch. Hist. IX. vii. §29 In vain do staid heads make serious comments on light mens random-expressions. 1697 DRYDEN Æneid IV. 95 The watchful Shepherd..Wounds with a random Shaft the careless Hind. 1728 POPE Dunc. I. 275 She shews..How random thoughts now meaning chance to find. 1764 BURN Poor Laws 190 Leaving the poor to be supported by random charity. 1827 ROBERTS Voy. Centr. Amer. 172 The random and ill-directed fire of the Spaniards. a1845 HOOD Song, ‘O Lady, leave thy silken thread’ i, Stoop where thou wilt, thy careless hand Some random bud will meet. 1877 E. R. CONDER Bas. Faith iii. 102 The random working of our..intellect.

Phr. at random, orig. at great speed, without consideration, care, or control; hence,   a. with vbs. of action or occurrence: At haphazard, without aim, purpose, or fixed principle; heedlessly, carelessly, etc. (Cf. also sense B. 1b.) Chiefly used with verbs of moving, striking, throwing, speaking, thinking, or taking; in early use esp. in the phr. to run at random (very common down to c1650).

"1565 JEWEL Replie Harding viii. §16 Leaste he happen..to renne at randon. 1591 SHAKES. 1 Hen. VI, V. iii. 84 He talkes at randon: sure the man is mad. 1592 {emem} Ven. & Ad. 940 Hatefully at randon doest thou hit. 1616 DRUMMOND OF HAWTHORNDEN Poems I. Cjb, Psyche's louer hurles his Darts at randon. 1662 GERBIER Principles 16 Not to Build at Randome, as the Custome of too many ill Builders is. 1729 BUTLER Serm. Hum. Nat. ii. Wks. 1874 II. 32 Man cannot be considered as a creature left by his Maker to act at random. 1796 H. HUNTER tr. St. Pierre's Stud. Nat. (1799) I. Pref. 9 A few passages, not selected, but picked up at random. 1833 J. HOLLAND Manuf. Metal II. 33 This composition is then dropped upon the surface..at random, leaving the effect to chance. 1862 SIR B. BRODIE Psychol. Inq. II. vi. 193 Eclipses..formerly were supposed to occur at random. 1898 W. A. WHITWORTH Expectation of Parts 7 If a magnitude s be divided at random into n parts, the expectation of each part is s/n. 1921 Biometrika XIII. 309 An event happens at random once in a period m, therefore its chance of occurring in an interval of time or space {delta}t is {delta}t/m. 1931 H. JEFFREYS Scientific Inference iii. 24 We select at random m of the objects... We need a definition of what we mean by at random. We mean that every possible selection of m objects from the original n is equally probable. 1951 Jrnl. Ecol. XXXIX. 172 The principle of contagion..is that the groups are distributed at random and that the number of individuals in each group is also random."

PointDread (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nami Tamaki Article - Recent Vandalism
Hey terry we're gonna have to do something about this Myami99 user who keeps vandalising and messing up the nami tamaki page. Looks like we may have to tag team this task and keep an eye on this one. I've already sent a message to this user, but i don't have the higher mod authority needed to do anything about it. Suggestions? AnthonyWalters (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New Life College, Bangalore
You're right, and I've restored the talk page. The page at New Life College, Bangalore was a redirect to Page Deleted, which was a result of the page move vandalism you mention. So that got deleted, since I did not see the original redirect in the history (dumb me). When I went to the talk page, it - still being redirected properly - sent me to the target page, which I proceeded to delete. I think everything's fixed now, but do doublecheck me - and thanks for pointing it out. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WPSchools assessment
Washington Manor Middle School - Victuallers and I are part of the same WPSchools assessment team, so it's not unusual for use to merge our assessments into the project banner, as it's a project assessment and not a third-party discussion about the article. --Jh12 (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the assessment to read merging into San Lorenzo Unified School District, but I'm not sure why you de-merged the project assessments. Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I didn't receive a response, I went ahead and moved all the assessments out of the banner. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Currencies on the LHC article
Please take a look at my response here. Talk Islander 20:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

CSA Patent Office Seal.gif
see my reply. --Oren neu dag (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (crucifixion in pop culture)
And thanks to you too. I wouldn't have noticed the issue to begin with had you not identified it, and I'm glad you contacted the editor who added the Superman material.--Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your move of List of parties to international copyright treaties
I think you'll find that all but one of the parties to TRIPS considers that it is a treaty… Bilateral copyright agreements of the United States is correct usage, but so is List of parties to international copyright treaties. Would you mind moving it back? Physchim62 (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert Kearns article
Pretty fast on the trigger finger there on the Robert Kearns article without any discussion. The "Tale of Two Cities" purported legal defense was in the screenplay and film. Anyone have the time to chase down all the actual legal documents and wade through them ? Should it just be deleted ? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you note. The above was addressed to you due to your deletion which I sort of understood. A modified version might be appropriate on the article's talk page. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine. I've put in on the article's talk page. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OpenJurist
Thanks for deciding to add OpenJurist to caselaw source. We appreciate it. Openjurist (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger Grimes (disambiguation)
Hello. This article has been nominated for deletion. Please see the article for the reasons, WP:MOSDAB and WP:PROD for how to improve the article/contest this, if you wamt to do so. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Dog "Massive Deletion"
I didn't make the deletion but the article had been cited as having a far too detailed plot section. --hubare (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Supreme Court
What is up with this edit? This is about the only supreme court that does not include this template. It is fairly standard at Category:United States political leader templates to include templates on both the office and the officeholder articles. See also U.S. state Chief Justices, U.S. State Secretaries of State, U.S. State Treasurers, Speakers of U.S. state Houses of Representatives, and U.S. State Attorneys General.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The position is Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice, which should redirect to Alaska Supreme Court, which is the same reason it is on all the other Supreme Court Pages. Look at all five of those template pages don't link to Attorney General, Secretary of State, etc.  They link to New York Attorney General, Illinois Secretary of State, etc.  A few dozen editors of all these templates seem to agree on this logic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alana De La Garza
Hi, someone adding link to movie for sale, tampering with page. Please check revision history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.13.35 (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding Openjurist.org to caselaw source template
Just following up on our discussion a few months ago about caselaw source template and getting openjurist.org added... Openjurist (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's 3RR
in regards to the article on Christopher Cox, the outgoing Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Wikipedia has this rule - 3 reverts only. I contacted someone who I thought was an administrator to report this problem before. He/she gave me a couple of useful links to report problems to a Wikipedia administrator. You can find the links on my talk page. I already reported this problem to the Admin who handles revert wars. He/she may have to block 71.217.3.20 and possibly Tycoon24 too if he/she continues with this battle. Ronewirl (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mount Vernon Nazarene
Thanks for the save. --Aepoutre (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Article on Christopher Cox
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronewirl (talk • contribs)


 * This same editor dropped the same unwarranted template on my talk page, also without signing it. JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)