User talk:TJRC/Archive7

RE: Grace Park
— foxj 02:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism on Felicia Day
Who died and put you in charge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.115.198 (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume you're referring to your vandalism at Felicia Day and my removal of it. I'm not in charge, but I will continue to remove vandalism such as this, and so will any other editor who notes it. TJRC (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actors & actresses
Hi TJRC! Thank you for putting me right on Hailee Steinfeld‎‎ and leading me to Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_30 Cheers! –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 10:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC) –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 18:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Seeing "actress" rather than "actor" irks me a little bit, as I am guessing it does you; and I don't think I really agree with that CFD outcome, but that's how it went.  TJRC (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it does— actress conjures up images of "ladies of the night", which is why the majority of our stars of stage and screen abhor the appellation. I missed that CFD, and I am rather surprised at its outcome –&#32;

Teresa Stanek Rea
You're welcome. Thanks for creating the article! David Kappos didn't stay in office for long... --Edcolins (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edmund G Brown Jr
Oh, btw are you any good with scripts? TucsonDavid U . S . A . 19:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not in the Wikipedia context; sorry. TJRC (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Angela Cartwright page
Hi TJRC--

I ordinarily do make the appropriate comments, but I got a little puzzled and confused. An entry I had made (and check on occasionally) in the "External Links" section had disappeared, and when I went to put it back in, I discovered it had been not exactly removed, but a new kind of entry, "Authority Control," was somehow making it not visible. All I did was re-arrange the entries so that both this "Authority Control" entry and my own (to an Angela Cartwright related site) were showing up correctly. Though I admit it did take a couple of times, and I did a bit of poking around to satisfy myself that this "Authority Control" was at least nominally relevant and legit.

98.229.91.73 (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. I recognized it as a good-faith edit, and made sure I reverted noting that ("Reverted good faith edits by 98.229.91.73...").  The link you added was still visible even with the AC template in place; it was just after the AC box (which, you're right; it should not be; the AC template should be after all the ELs).  If you look at, you'll see your link after the AC box.  It's generally a good idea when removing something like this to indicate in the edit summary why you're doing so.  It makes it look less like vandalism (which I never assumed anyway) and makes your good-faith more clear.


 * Also, I hate to say it, but the link you added, Penny Robinson Fan Club is not an appropriate External Link under Wikipedia guidelines; see WP:FANSITE, item #11. TJRC (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey TJRC; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice attention to detail.
It is a bit redundant to have those links when the TOC covers them. Thanks for your hard work. --☥NEO (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Hogan incapacity?
From what I could find out concerning the Thomas Hogan Incapacity (See Article "Administrative Office of the United States Courts") his incapacity lasted but 5 days, and it was a scriveners error that led me down the road of misinformed and misinformation. For this I humbly apologize.

Birdymckee (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)BirdymcKee [Thomas R. McKee]

File:Francis Harrington Glidden.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Francis Harrington Glidden.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: There are no details in the original, so I didn't make any up.

Thanks: Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Thanks for catching the additional vandalism on this page. I reverted vandalism but did not see that there was further vandalism from a previous IP user. That led to my restoration of that vandalism. It is something I usually look at but it is good to be reminded that it is important. Donner60 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, I've done that myself. I probably only noticed because I was going to revert the original vandalism, and in between the time I pulled my watchlist and went to revert, the two new vandalisms, and your revert of them, had occurred.  So it was a bit more prominent for me. TJRC (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleting a comment, but not the whole topic
Thanks for deleting my comment in a Whitespace programming language talk page, but not the whole topic? Why was my comment not valid, but topic was? Somebody stated that the programming language has no purpose (which it does not), and I agreed. As for discussing the topic, a lot of wikipedia articles discuss the topic in the talk pages, because it is not appropriate to do discussion in the regular page. This serves two purposes. One, a person can learn from the discussions. And two, the discussions in the long run help to make articles better. Maybe you agree or maybe you disagree. But as for me, as a user of Wikipedia, the best part of wikipedia are the discussions of topics on the talk pages, because it can point a person in directions which the main article cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.15.13 (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message
Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia! Anotherpioneer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to. Sorry for welcoming and then "unwelcoming" you, but I was looking at your user page rather than your talk page when I was thinking you had not yet been welcomed.  I removed my welcome only to keep from cluttering your talk page, not because I thought better of it! TJRC (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Spam links
This is Harry Ray. I'm not sure why you thought I was putting spam on Wikipedia. These are a legitimate additions to the page that help add valuable information. Can you please cite a part of Wikipedia's guidelines that specifically mark my links as spam? I really would like to know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry B. Ray (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Earl Warren
As a member of a Moose Lodge, specifically Simi Valley Women of the Moose Chapter 1959, I find it VERY informative to know that a former Cheif Justice was not only a member, but a Pilgrim Degree of Merit holder, but thank you for your "correction". KLB24.199.22.218 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, and I'm sure you won't put it back without including a source. TJRC (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing Question
I'd like to thank you for the message you sent me about my edits to the John Garamendi page. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and was simply not aware of what to do with non-working links. If I cannot repair the link or find a replacement for it then what should I do? I have come across links that do not work and seem to have been placed, with the authors knowledge that the link was not working, simply to make false information seem legitimate. In that case, it seems to me that the citation should be deleted because it is being falsely represented in order to back up biased information. This is actually what I thought the case was on the John Garamendi page, and that is why I deleted the link. 76.20.47.0 (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the best thing to do is to try to find a replacement (often on the same web site, which may have been reorganized; or using the Wayback Machine), but you're ahead of me there. If you can't do that, though, the best thing to do is mark it with a dead link template.  This serves pretty much the same function as the cn template you used, but preserves the reference.  This will give others a starting point to try to address it (I've sometimes been unable to find a replacement; but someone with better searching skills than I have has often followed up and found one); and it also documents that a reference once supported the statement (assuming it's not a fake reference, as you suggest).  For example, this cite says that it was checked on November 2010, so that puts a stake in the ground that the source once supported the statement (assuming good faith).


 * Faked references for false information are another issue, though. For those, I would suggest opening a subject on the article's talk page, and include why you think the information is wrong and the reference falsified.  For anything that's controversial or particularly suspect, the information itself should be removed, not just asked for a cite.


 * I just checked the Wayback Machine and found an archive of the page, and have just added that the cite, unless congress.org is not a reliable source. TJRC (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (update) I just changed it again to use a live link I found at Roll Call, which is clearly a reliable source. And it seems that congress.org is published by Roll Call, so there's no reason to question its reliability; but still, better to have a live source than a dead link + archive. TJRC (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that wasn't a test.
That article is really out of date. I don't know how to format the 'problems with an article' box, so I just wrote it out hoping some mod would format it. 24.148.118.189 (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any bot that does that; but you can put at the top, and it will probably have the effect you want.  However, it's not apparent from looking at it what's out of date about it, so it would be a very good idea to post a note on the talk page at Talk:Duct tape occlusion therapy setting out what you think makes it out-of-date.  An unexplained tag will probably (and should) get removed unless the problem it is pointing out is clear from the face of the article. TJRC (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Knight
I know a children's book isn't a good source. I didn't put the quote there, just the reference. Is an unsourced quote any better? See my entry on talk page. WQUlrich (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have it unsourced with a call to fix it than have an unreliable source sitting there masquerading as a RS. The Mary Pope Osborne books are very entertaining (my six-year-old and I read them together), but are pretty far from reliable.  I know you didn't add it; the editor who added it is a new editor whose only posts have been about MPO. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just didn't want you to think that a 63 year old man without grandchildren was going around reading children's books. They put people in The Home for things like that. Face-wink.svgich (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
TB randley (T • C  • B) 07:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Brenda Venus
I replaced the deletion tag on Brenda Venus because it was removed when another user "blanked" the entire page. I do not see what your issues are about this tag. I posted this article on a page marked "Articles for deletion" but I didn't know the proper format and there were no instructions. It would have been much simpler if this unnecessary, unsourced article could have just been automatically deleted after 7 days as no one has responded to comments on the Talk Page. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You may have missed that the prod was reverted by Mirakado; not the blanking that was a few edits later.


 * If you want to do an AFD, there are instructions at WP:Guide to deletion (If you were editing WP:AFD, there's a pointer to the Guide at the top.)


 * Wikipedia has a few levels for deletion. The one you tried, PROD ("proposed deletion"), is basically an assertion that no one could reasonably believe this article should be retained; once someone rebuts that, as Mirakado did, PROD is not available any longer.  You cannot reinstate a PROD or re-PROD anytime later.


 * AFD ("Articles for Deletion") is another approach, where there may be a difference of opinion on whether the article should be kept. The proposal there is debated for a week or longer, and a decision on deletion/retention made based on the consensus that emerges.


 * However, the sourecdness of an article is not usually a basis for deletion. The prime consideration is whether the subject is notable.  If the subject is notable but the article is poorly sourced, the fix is to improve the sources, not to delete the article.


 * Venus was pretty famous in her day, so I think the article would probably pass AFD pretty handily, but you're welcome to give it a shot. TJRC (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Copyright status of work by the U.S. government". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  22:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto at AN/I. Perhaps an admin can help you see that it's not constructive to again demand an answer to a question when the question has been answered and you have DELETED THE ANSWER. --Elvey (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto at AN/I.  AGAIN.  What part of "Hello! There is a AN/I notice you may have interest in" do you not understand?--Elvey (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I take a response to a comment about a July 29 AN/I that has been archived to be a comment to a July 29 AN/I that has been archived. TJRC (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I discussion
Hi there, you may have missed my request in this thread for you to state what admin action you would like to see (if any). If you could reply on that thread, it would be greatly appreciated. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  22:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been over 24 hours since I made this request for you to respond at AN/I. It may be that you have been busy or thought better of pursuing that thread, but if you do want to respond could I ask that you do so within 24 hours from the datestamp of this post? If we don't hear from you at AN/I I'll close the thread there. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  12:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your useful recent edit on Pleasantville was deleted, are you aware
Earlier in August you had made a useful edit on Pleasantville which someone has deleted, are you aware? 208.120.96.227 (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I noticed the little red dot on my screen indicating I'd been mentioned (in the "undo" edit summary), so I saw it.  I just brought it up on the Talk:Pleasantville (film), seeking opinions beyond my own and that of TheOldJacobite. TJRC (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Elvey (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

?
well about klimperei add in pictures at an exhibition it was just factual information so i think you act as a little stalinist ashole in the wikipedialand, do what you want, helle goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klimperei (talk • contribs) 09:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.  If'' you're not going to discuss things, then don't don't revert; to do do is to edit war. Specifically: I edited, adding the comment,
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Per TJRC's TP suggestion that we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law."

I edited per your suggestion. And yet : Your response was (diff):
 * Reverted to revision 569514616 by TJRC: Revert to the version approved by two editors; Elvey is the lone wolf here. (TW)

A reminder: WP:!VOTE says, "[!VOTE] serves as a cute little reminder that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important." Should I not take you on your word when you suggested we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law" - - then what?

I'm at a loss as to how to deal with this intransigence. --Elvey (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)'' Elvey (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring
As a result of this intransigence, there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring.

--Elvey (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)'' Elvey (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to drive the point home, because you keep accusing me of not notifying you of DRs that I had notified you of, and had done so in a timely manner, here on your talk page:

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
 * Hello TJRC. You are encouraged to respond at WP:AN3. It appears to be a long-running two person edit war, where neither side is behaving well. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to you but they are not yet being taken. If you have an idea for solving this, please indicate that in your response. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Calculus made easy - inappropriate external link removal
'''However, please do not remove dead links simply because a link is not working, as you did to Calculus Made Easy. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible .''' Thank you. ''Seriously, you didn't know this? You need to read DEADREF before editing further. Edit: Actually, everything is right there in the Template:Uw-deadlink warning's well-written text. Afterward, please let us know: do you understand why I reverted your edit to Calculus Made Easy?'' Elvey (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Elvey, thanks for this revert. When I deleted it, the link was inoperative, but it is indeed working now.


 * But you are misapplying DEADREF, which applies to references, and not to External liks sections, as here. The applicable guide you want to look at is DEADREF: "Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer."


 * But anyway, it's moot, as the link is working now, so thanks for re-adding it. Now, just knock off the attitude, okay? TJRC (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought maybe I did and you didn't need to read DEADREF before editing further, but then I realized that you are misquoting it. It says no such thing.  What you needed to read is right there in the Template:Uw-deadlink warning's well-written text. (Now in bold. )''I didn't misapply  DEADREF.  What does it actually say?  "[All d]ead [external] links should be repaired or replaced if possible." Why do you feel the need to attack and falsely accuse all the time?  A live substitute link could be found; you should have found and added it, instead of the harmful edit you did.  If you did something wrong (and you did, irrespective of whether the link is working now or not) and you can't see or admit it, you're likely to repeat it.  That's the situation here, so the issue isn't moot.  Perhaps others reading this will see this, even if you don't.


 * I asked you recently: "Shall we take a look at the policies and concerns noted at the AN/I and each make an effort to only say what we can that's conciliatory in response, as a first step forward? toward peaceful, constructive editing?"    Perhaps if you responded, perhaps if you did so, you'd be a better editor. --Elvey (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your invitation to WP:FIGHT is declined. TJRC (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I asked, "Shall we take a look at the policies and concerns noted at the AN/I and each make an effort to only say what we can that's conciliatory in response, as a first step forward? toward peaceful, constructive editing?"    Perhaps if you responded, perhaps if you did so, you'd be a better editor."  And your response is to accuse me of inviting you to fight.   Wow, just wow.  BTW, did you realize you quoted a sentence that's actually in a how-to, rather than from a policy or the guideline you claimed it was from?  I just did.  --Elvey (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Invitation to fight is still declined. TJRC (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your invitation to WP:FIGHT is declined. My olive branch remains extended.  Your notice of intent to attack upon your return has been noted.  --Elvey (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. ''Example: diff and I've seen lots more. '' Elvey (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This invitation to fight is also declined. TJRC (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for the friendly and reasoned article deletion, will take that under advisement :) BashfulSimian (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Conflict of property laws


The article Conflict of property laws has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The article is ultimately a piece of original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yuja Wang discography
Hello,

I'm about to upload the french wikipedia about the last CD of Yuja Wang, and I've read somewhere that on this CD, there is Prokofiev tocatta as a bonus track. But I don't have the CD yet, and I haven't found an "official" source like the site of DG. Can you help ? Thanks, Zandr4&#91;Kupopo ?&#93; 01:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, as I see you have listed the recording of Prokoviev 3 with Abaddo, you may want to add the recording with Kurt Masur of Mendelssohn first piano concerto in Verbier ! Zandr4&#91;Kupopo ?&#93; 01:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Chief Wahoo‎
Actually, MOS:QUOTE says: "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment)" and I've been using that rule but putting a sic is also fine so it's all good. Aisteco (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Trademark Policy Discussion
Hi TJRC!

I noticed that you've contributed to the trademark article on Wikipedia. I wanted to reach out to you because the Wikimedia Foundation legal team has just released a draft trademark policy for consultation with the Wikimedia community. The purpose of the new draft is to facilitate permissive use of the Wikimedia trademarks for the community while preserving protection of the marks.

I thought that you may have an interesting perspective to add to this discussion, given your interest in trademark law. I would like to personally invite you to review the new draft and contribute any comments you may have. We plan to keep the discussion open for two months and incorporate the feedback into the final trademark policy. We hope this new version of the policy will make it easier for community members to use the logos to encourage Wikipedia editing.

Best,

DRenaud (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)