User talk:TJRC/Archive5

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

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

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

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


 * I won't edit it further, but I think a response is appropriate. First, "sudden" is not factual; it's opinion.  Is three days "sudden"?  Some would say yes, some would say no.  It is clearly not "factual."


 * Second, whether a particular departure seems to be "sudden" is entirely subjective, and may only seem sudden due to unavailability of information to the observer. For all anyone knows, Godwin and the Foundation worked out the terms of his leaving over a period of time, and it wasn't "sudden" at all.


 * Third, most substantively, the use of "sudden" carries with it some implication that there is something mysterious and nefarious going on here, and that may not be the case at all. Godwin is an attorney; something may have come up which presented a conflict of interest requiring his withdrawal, for all we know.  The use of "sudden" invites the reader to infer hey, something is going on here.....  That's not something Signpost should be doing.  Why should it?


 * Fourth, I'm not persuaded that bias and innuendo that would not be appropriate in an article is appropriate for Signpost, merely because it has a byline. For one thing, WP:OWN, which (unlike WP:Signpost/About) is policy, makes quite clear, "All Wikipedia content is open to being edited collaboratively."  It does not make an exception for the Signpost, and Signpost cannot, via WP:Signpost/About, override Wikipedia policy and except itself from it.  For another, bias and innuendo is no more appropriate by virtue of appearing under a byline than otherwise.  If anything, semi-official organs like Signpost should be at least as careful as article content.


 * Fifth and finally, I'm not persuaded that this is absolved because the same poor judgment was used in a prior Signpost article. For one thing,  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no better an argument for Signpost than it is for article space.  For another, compounding bad judgment does not make it good judgment, it just makes it more bad judgment.


 * As I said, I'm not editing this further. It's unfortunate enough that the innuendo is there in violation of Wikipedia policy and best practices.  Starting a debate about it on a more public Signpost will just amplify it.


 * In the unlikely event I've persuaded you, however, please feel free to revert yourself. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It was factual in that it was based on an objective timespan, instead of guessing at the reasons. I get the distinct impression that you were not very familiar with the matter that was being reported. The announcement was made on October 19, the departure was on October 22, the search started in "late October". Any objective observer who compares this with customs for such changes at similar organizations (or just with other WMF staff departures - I can point you to several others reported in the Signpost if you want) will conclude that this was an unusually short timespan. FWIW, just this week a prominent law blog described the departure as "very sudden" while reporting about the new hire.
 * Your second point is speculation which is contradicted by the "late October" quote and the safe assumption that the WMF's leadership would not have purposefully delayed the search for a successor (leaving the organization without permanent counsel).
 * In your third point you argue that Signpost readers should be denied solid facts about a news item out of the vague fear that they might engage in speculation based on these facts. I agree that the Signpost itself should not engage in speculation, and that facts have to be weighed in their importance. However, in my judgement this information (the unusually short timespan) was an essential aspect of the situation - with considerable impact on the actual work of the WMF -, and I think that suppressing it with the goal of steering readers towards the conclusion that nothing unusual happened is irreconcilable with good journalism.
 * Your far-reaching interpretation of WP:OWN relies on a misquote (omitting the qualifying footnote after "All Wikipedia content") and is contradicted, for example, by long-established talk page guidelines discouraging the tampering with signed comments by other users. Both talk pages and Signpost articles differ from the mainspace content (that WP:OWN refers to) in their way of attributing content (by signatures and bylines, respectively). Like I said, I would have been happy for you to become involved before publication and to be credited by a byline if necessary (e.g. because of a disagreement), and I don't intend to "own" the Signpost's "News and notes" section at all : While for months I have been writing most of it, I purposefully refrain from assigning this beat to myself, trying to invite others to assume responsibilty for it too. I realize that the custom of "freezing" the content (except for cosmetic changes or necessry corrections) is somewhat alien to heavy wiki users, but it is due to the general needs of news reporting; you will also find it at Wikinews.
 * The remark about you being the only reader to have objected to that repeatedly used wording was just intended to give you some pause in your outrage and perhaps make you think more clearly about the differences between journalistic and encyclopedic writing. I'll probably have to admit that it failed to achieve that aim.
 * For the record, from all I have seen I had gotten the impression that Mike Godwin was a great, very competent GC for the WMF; I don't know of any good reason for him to leave the WMF or for the WMF to get rid of him and I won't speculate about any in the Signpost.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Cooper
DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC) DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


 * Well, they're consistent within the law schools articles that you've updated, but inconsistent with the standard used throughout Wikipedia that the official website template provides.  Is there some reason you think the law school articles should be different? TJRC (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, law school articles are not different. In looking at Template:Official website I see this example (6th one down):

This tells me that adding the name of the school after the pipe | is perfectly acceptable. Moreover, other ELs have descriptive names. Why would the official template be restricted to a "Official Website" result when other non-template ELs are not so restricted? --S. Rich (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "{ { official website|http://www.example.org|name=Official example website } }	Result: Official example website"

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I've started a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Nagios. please join in and help determine a consensus.  I'm fine with them staying in or staying out, whichever the consensus is. TJRC (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added to the discussion. It's been a long time since I've read through all the wikipedia policy so I am not fluent in the vocabulary of the active community members and don't have policy quotes at hand.  But I hope I have contributed to the discussion.  Thanks.  (I'll probably ignore Wikipedia for another 6 months now, again, so I hope that resolution, at whatever pace, moves forward without me.)  --kop (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

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


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

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

Oz Template
Thank you, that looks super! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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

constantly being harrassed
Hi, Babbaq keeps giving problems and is taking this personal vendetta against someone that must live in my area out on everyone. I simply changed a word on the cheshire,ct page as we do not have a mayor and he/she keeps reverting and leaving all sorts of silly messages. If this is an encyclopedia, we should have our facts straight and we most certainly do not have a mayor. Thanks for any help you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.149 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the IP has been blocked two times for harassment against me. The IP has also used other IPs to vandalize both the Cheshire, Connecticut article and the Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders article. If anything this is just one more way for the Ip to instigate vandalism on Wikipedia.Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here you can see one of many earlier attempts of vandalism and harassment against me from the IP. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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


 * First, you should read and understand WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMOTION. You have a clear conflict of interest with Wikipedia's interest in providing a neutral point-of-view encyclopedia; your interest is to provide a promotional piece, which is inconsistent with that.


 * Given your conflict, and your practice of using the article for promotion, you should probably not be editing this article at all. It seems impossible for you to do so while remaining neutral.


 * Some of your edits are neutral, but most are not. It is not practical for another editor to go and rewrite or edit all of your contributions because you will not adhere to Wikipedia policies.  Regrettably, about the only thing one can do is just revert your edits.


 * If you limited your edits to neutral information well-sourced to reliable sourced (read WP:RS, too) that are not affiliated with this act, mass reversion would not be required. TJRC (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

hey

 * I said this on User talk:Skol fir, and it applies to you as well: You should try your hand at FAC reviewing... By the way, this song (from a cheap-thrills movie) is kinda tolerable, but actually I'm a fuddy duddy, and this song (from a movie that's definitely much better, but still not great) is definitely more my style.• Ling.Nut (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Heh. As a rule, I don't remove comments from my talk page, even ones like the above, so just for posterity, here is the vandalism record for :
 * February 2011
 * A streak of run-of-the-mill ordinary unimaginative vandalism:, , ,
 * Article talk page nonsense: ,
 * Accusing other editors of vandalism (similar to the comment above): ,
 * Blocked for vandalism:
 * Wiping his own talk page to hide the documentation of his vandalism and block: Note that this is not a good-faith removal of warnings as discussed at WP:OWNTALK, as evidenced by the subsequent track record of vandalism.
 * March 2011
 * Vandalizing by adding a "globalize" template to a series of articles without regard to content:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , . This at least shows some imagination, because this type of vandalism is more likely not to be noticed as vandalism.
 * More talk page vandalism:, ,
 * Again with the hiding the warnings and blocking:
 * The spurious "warning" posted above:
 * I don't think I'm going to lose any sleep over this accusation. TJRC (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

External link for Heinrich Baermann, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Mily Balakirev, Alexander Borodin, Modest Mussorgsky, César Cui and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
I’m a new editor on Wikipedia. I recently tried to add an external link to what I believe is relevant content that is found in Linfield College’s institutional repository. I am not trying to spam, add inappropriate links, or promote a product. Because the material is directly related to the topic, I’m not sure why this link would be considered inappropriate. Can you explain why you removed the external link? Thank you!Ssumkhu (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I ordinarily respond on my talk page, but given the multiplicity of editors who have reverted your edits, and the unrelated nature of the articles to which you've added them, I'm responding on your talk page. The sole common characteristic of the 19 links you added (other than the target site) is that you made them, so that's the most logical place to discuss. TJRC (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

TJRC (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Huh; that seems to have changed some time ago. I disagree with it, but given the apparent consensus, will not re-revert. TJRC (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding (2nd nomination)
TJRC, you very briefly commented on the above AfD. What procedure or template is there for inviting other independent editors to come read and comment? I've searched quite a bit and haven't found it, but I recall seeing it used on another Afd previously.  Austex •  Talk  21:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You can read WP:AFD and WP:DELSORT. I think the bulk of what you're asking for has already been done by these edits:,.
 * You know, it's interesting that you started out the AFD saying you had a COI and would refrain from making further comments in the AFD, but, out of the 63 edits in the AFD, all but 15 have been made by you; that is, you've made 3x the number of edits of everyone else combined. It might be a good idea for you to sit back and let the AFD run its course.  TJRC (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your points are well taken. I keep messing with the tiniest detail.  I'll pull back.   Austex  •  Talk  22:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversion

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

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


 * Yes, please see CITEVAR. "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it. Do not change it merely for personal preference or cosmetic reasons. Do not add citation templates to an article that already uses an accepted citation format. If you think the existing citation system is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page." TJRC (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article's established form is no citation templates. You are edit warring to retain them in violation of WP:CITEVAR. Your editing is disruptive. If you ever do this again I will block you. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not edit warring. I am asking you to obtain a consensus.  If you are an admin, and block me over this, you are abusing your privileges and I will open a case against you. TJRC (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The form of every other citation in that article is no citation templates. Now self-revert your disruptive edits. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please obtain consensus. TJRC (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Listen, the cite templates were added in violation of guideline. The established form of the article is no citation templates. Do you dispute this? If so, then please explain how 98 of 102 references can be in no citation templates and you can justify disruptively edit warring to retain citation templates in the other 4? Your editing is obtructionist. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please obtain consensus. We're just repeating ourselves now, so I will not be continuing this discussion.  If you open a discussion to obtain consensus on the talk page, I will join in. TJRC (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. S

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

Thanks again for your help on this issue. GA

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

September 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sid Tarrabain, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. '' This is quite obnoxious. My !vote doesn't have a direct reply, it was merely referred to in another !vote. I was quite clear enough about what I was changing in my comment and I think it qualifies as exactly what I said it was, a correction in the wikilink, certainly not a change intended to alter the substance of my remarks. But not satisfied just to change my comment, you've also changed another editor's as well. This is unhelpful, especially from such an experienced editor. I'm requesting that you self-revert. If you want to chastise me for editing my comment, either template me on my talk page or post a complaint where I did it. But please don't refactor me or others.'' Msnicki (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, first, let me apologize if my edit upset you.


 * By way of explanation; yes, your comment had been replied to: I replied to it in my comment expressing a !vote, directly below yours; . My statement " I disagree that WP:1E applies here" was in direct response to your statement "notable only for his death in an auto accident WP:1E".  Your edit was contrary to WP:REDACT, for the reasons given there: "Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context."


 * But, shame on me: my edit of your comment itself was contrary to the text right above that WP:TPO, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request." So, yes, I see my edit was wrong, and apologize for that; I should have either asked you to make the same edit, or modified my own comment to explain that I had responded to an earlier unedited comment.


 * And just for clarity, as you presumably gather from the above, I did not "also changed another editor's as well."; I changed my own.


 * Given the above do you still request that I revert myself? It seems pointless given the above, since my next request would be to request for you to make the same edit, to conform to WP:REDACT. TJRC (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did want you to revert, which is why I asked you. Since you did not, offering only excuses, I reverted your change to my comment myself.  In the future, if you don't like my remarks, complain if you feel it necessary, but do not refactor them.  Msnicki (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * He is clearly mass-deleting material without the knowledge of the subject matter he's editing. Look at his edit history. TJRC (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing he is doing is wrong, and certainly not vandalism. He is redirecting non-notable songs to the album as is standard.  If they are, in fact, notable songs, this needs to be prove through reliable sources in the article.  I would say he does have knowledge of the subject matter, though, based on hundreds of edits related to songs/music in his history.  either way (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And I see you have reverted my redirect of the article. Again, you need to prove that this is, in fact, a notable single.  Right now absolutely nothing in the article proves it is notable.  It is not on me to prove that.  either way (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is on you if you want to make content decisions based on your belief about the subject matter of the article and its notability. I just added the charting info, but look: please don't make unilateral judgments about the notability of the subject of an article, especially if you don't know anything about it.  If you're that concerned, raise it as a PROD or an AFD. TJRC (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I have put it up at AFD. Additionally, again, it doesn't matter what I know about the subject.  It matters what's in the article with reliable sources.  Nothing in the article I was redirecting showed it was a notable single...it just show it was, in fact, a single.  Therefore, I redirected because nothing proved it was notable in there.  either way (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * They're certainly not usually accidentally created. See WP:Redirect for a pretty good discussion.  In many cases, they are effectively aliases to enable references to the target articles without cumbersome piping.  Really, see WP:NOTBROKEN for a discussion of this point. Yes, they're sometimes incidentally (I wouldn't say "accidentally") created, as a result of page moves, but that's far from being the usual means of creation or the main or primary purpose behind them.  TJRC (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The Redirect page is a guideline, not a policy, so it should not be enforced. It's simply a recommendation. I don't think anybody has any difficulty with editing on account of there being or not being any redirect. Things like long citations, especially ones with quotes, likely cause editing difficulties for people. SMP0328. (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's somewhat more than a mere "recommendation." A guideline is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."  Do you believe that the Second Amendment article is exceptional, so that the guideline should not be followed? TJRC (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Beating of Hillary Adams
As someone who has edited Beating of Hillary Adams, you may be interested in commenting at Talk:Beating of Hillary Adams. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. But hopefully, both articles will be deleted at AFD.  If either one, or both, is deleted, the merger discussion is moot.  You might wish to put your two cents in at either AFD you have an opinion on . TJRC (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

template nono
with respect to this:  I'd changed that to 'retracted' on purpose (it seemed a more appropriate and less aggressive word), so it wasn't a typo. do you really prefer redacted? -- Ludwigs 2 02:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I assumed it was a typo. It definitely should not be "retracted."  "retracted" is the wrong word; it means that the person who put the stricken text out there took the words back.  "Redacted" means the words are concealed, and is the correct word.  If you use "retracted," you are misrepresenting that the person who made the edit being redacted has voluntarily decided to retract them. TJRC (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, good enough. since I mostly use this to obscure my own errors in judgement, I thought 'retracted' was better, but I can always add that in as a2nd parameter.    -- Ludwigs 2  03:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from. "Retracted" is perfectly correct in those cases where the person adding the template is the author of the words being stricken.  I don't know if that's the usual case, though, and if it is, then the template name "redact" is a misnomer.  The two circumstances seem like different enough cases that they should have separate templates.  I encountered this template here, where one editor was redacting another's comment, rather than retracting his own. TJRC (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Unreferenced material
It's the responsibility of the editor doing the insertion to provide a source. If you feel the urge to source the material, that's fine. If I remove unsourced material (complete with an incorrect article title pointing to a non-existent article, in this case), that's also fine.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that, of the 53 appearances in that section, only 3 have sources, and the link was to a valid variant of the title, deletion of material without determining whether it ought to be deleted seems more than a little pointy. I had more regard for you when I thought it was an honest mistake; but it's unfortunate that you still think you did the right thing even when your error is pointed out. TJRC (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)