Misplaced Pages

User talk:TJRC: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:28, 11 August 2013 editElvey (talk | contribs)9,497 edits →Hello! There is a AN/I notice you may have interest in.← Previous edit Revision as of 23:27, 15 August 2013 edit undoElvey (talk | contribs)9,497 edits Hello! There is a AN/I notice you may have interest in, again.Next edit →
Line 976: Line 976:
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] <sup>''] / ]''</sup> 22:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] <sup>''] / ]''</sup> 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. --] (]) 02:28, 11 August 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. --] (]) 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?--] (]) 23:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:27, 15 August 2013

Template:Busy4

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Archiving icon
Archives

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) Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages content is open to being edited collaboratively." It does not make an exception for the Signpost, and Signpost cannot, via WP:Signpost/About, override Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Hello, TJRC. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Hello, TJRC. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 BabbaQ 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages: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 • 20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

constantly being harrassed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Take this to a more appropriate forum.

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 Misplaced Pages.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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 21 March 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 22 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 22:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 29 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 96.55.240.89 (talk · contribs · logs · block log):
  • 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)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TJRC. You have new messages at Bgwhite's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:32, 24 May 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)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:49, 28 June 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 17#Category:Companies of China

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 17#Category:Companies of China. Fayenatic (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:29, 9 August 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)

:Not on disambiguation pages; see WP:MOSDAB. 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(ل)ˀ Contribs. 23:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: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#Notifying_interested_people 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

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 " 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 Misplaced Pages: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#Purposes of redirects 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)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello TJRC! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:29, 26 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#Merge/redirect. 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? --Ludwigs2 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. --Ludwigs2 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 Misplaced Pages. — 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.—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)

Commonwealth realm

Not to gripe, but are pipe-links really that bad? GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There really is a good discussion at WP:NOTBROKEN, where I pointed. They don't do any good, and they make an article harder to read in source, among other things. In sum, it doesn't help; and hurts a little. Is there any particular reason you want to do this? I don't see anything different about this article that suggests it should not follow editing guidelines. TJRC (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't look good, linking to 2 articles next to each other - . Thefore I combined them as . GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No, please don't. Let's stick to the guidelines, okay? TJRC (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, scratch that last comment; I misunderstood (and undid my own resulting edit). I still think it's probably worth linking Pope, but that's a judgment call. TJRC (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Orpheus Amulet

Hi, I appreciate your attempts to be even-handed on this, but I don't agree with your approach. Firstly, Misplaced Pages policy is clearly that self-published fringe sources are unacceptable - and I have provided good, acceptable sources for the alternative view. BRD does not trump good sourcing rules, as far as I can see. Secondly, if you look at the history of this dispute you will see that at least 4 different editors have put the mainstream view and only one is supporting the inclusion of the item, on the other hand. So insofar as there is a consensus it is clearly against inclusion.

I have part-reverted my 2 edits today but I propose to reinstall my last one unless the single editor in favour of this can come up with a better citation very quickly.

Sorry to be so abrupt here - I am sure we are on the same side on this - but I am very pressed for time and really should be doing other things. --Rbreen (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a procedural point: you should discuss on the talk page when you're making a disputed edit, and this one has a history. That's it. My take? You're probably right. Why don't you make your point on the talk page? That's what it's for. TJRC (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

IBM Talk archive

Hi TJRC, I find it complicated to carry on a conversation on two separate pages, so I've responded on my Talk page to your message concerning your recent undo of my undo. Please read it as friendly in tone (with a New Zealand accent). Koro Neil (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestive dialogue

I've closed the RfD as convert to a DAB page. You indicated that you were interested in doing that, so I figured I'd notify you that it's all set. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done; thanks. TJRC (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox snack

Please don't nominate this for G4 speedy; that's only applicable when the current content is the same as the deleted content, so a redirect doesn't qualify for G4 when the previous deletion was that of a template. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I put the explanation on the talk page, because it wasn't obvious; but I'll take it to XFD. TJRC (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Epicenter

Thanks for seeing that erroneous change I made. I was watching out for quotations (as you will see from some of the other changes I made) but this one slipped through. Imc (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

A Barnstar! Golden Wiki Award
Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.137 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dwyer

The reason I want the header left as-is, is so that the OP's attitude is clearly on display. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As you wish. For what it's worth, I do think that he has a good point and if there actually were an alternate image available, that would be a better photo to use in the infobox; with this photo moved to the suicide section. But not unless/until that photo is available, and not deleted in its entirety in any case. TJRC (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, he alleged that he had such an image, but he didn't post it. I agree that a neutral image would be better for the infobox. But until he makes good on his promise to supply such an image, that's the best we've got. And, frankly, no one outside of his political or family circles likely would remember this guy if it wasn't for his dramatic, public suicide. I did see that there was a normal portrait on findagrave, but I'm not keen on ripping that one off. P.S. I wonder if you've ever seen the uncensored video clip. It's grim. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Yup, I'm right there with you. I also had initially thought that the only basis for notability was the suicide; but there are a surprising number of Pennsylvania Treasurers with articles.
I've seen the video; I don't care to see it again. While it's not as bad as the Daniel Pearl one, which still gives me the willies; it's bad enough. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I've seen the Pearl video. I was watching a clip of Vince D'Onofrio's final scene in Full Metal Jacket, and it could have been a carbon copy of the Dwyer video - except it was clearly fake, for gory reasons I can skip here. The findagrave entry for Dwyer is here: ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
And having just skimmed the article to refresh my memory, I think I'll skip the Pearl video. The Buddhist monk who burned himself in Vietnam, and Dwyer, both did themselves in voluntarily. That's different from a "snuff" film such as the Pearl video presumably would be. What savages. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Good call. I saw the Pearl video shortly after the event. Somewhere or other a link to the video was posted, and I couldn't help myself. It's as hideous as you no doubt imagine.
I did enjoy Full Metal Jacket, though, like every Kubrick film I've ever seen (well, maybe not Eyes Wide Shut). It always struck me as almost being two one-hour films; each of two portions -- basic training and in-country -- stand alone well on their own; but much better combined. TJRC (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Kubrick was certainly a unique character, and while his films might be uneven, or sometimes questionable as entertainment, they always generated a good deal of discussion. I realized in writing here, that the Dwyer incident and the "Gomer Pyle" incident both came in 1987. As I recall, Platoon (which had come out in late 1986) kind of overshadowed Full Metal Jacket, being the same general theme. It was funny hearing Hartman in FMJ invoke the same "steers and queers" line that had been spoken by Louis Gossett in Officer and a Gentleman. However, I read somewhere that Ermey was an advisor on Officer, so that might have been his line. Gossett made a better drill sergeant on-screen, I think, because he seemed realistic, while Ermey was right on the edge of being cartoonish. Not that I would have wanted to have to deal with either one of them. Getting a bit off-track here. Sorry. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I changed the main section heading to neutral terms posted earlier by yourself and another editor, and retained the OP's stupid comment as a sub-heading. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates

Thanks for catching what was indeed a good-faith edit on my part. I was surprised when the link didn't work for me, as NR usually does a pretty good job with its archives. As you said, it must have just been a hiccup on my part or theirs. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Bowie Bonds

Hi TJRC, I recently changed Prudential plc to Prudential Financial on the Bowie Bonds page. Apologies for changing without citing the source. I have confirmation from Prudential Financial that it was them and not Prudential plc. I could not find out where the original source came from in any of the articles. Can you please advise me of the best way forward? Should I ask Prudential Financial in America to change this rather than me? Debbie Crowley (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi TJRC, on further investigation the reference to the statement that Prudential Insurance Company ("PIC") bought the bonds (note 1) is the Eastside Journal of 15 February 1997. Misplaced Pages have then cross referenced PIC to plc instead of Prudential Financial Insurance.

Can I draw your attention to the fact that the ultimate holding company of PIC is PFI not Prudential plc. You can find this information at www.prudential.com.

I do need to get this changed to Prudential Financial as it is currently incorrect. Debbie Crowley (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi TRJC, I now have the references.

Can you please change this article? The article should read: 'Issued in 1997, the bonds were bought for US$55 million by the Prudential Insurance Company of America'.

The references are:

http://bonds.about.com/od/buyingbonds/a/BowieBond.htm http://www.pullmanco.com/article118.htm

Please let me know if you are able to now update this article? Debbie Crowley (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, first, let me apologize for not responding to your comment. I just had a short vacation, and between preparing to go, going, and than catching up on work when I returned, I let this slip throgh the cracks. I saw the update you made today, and it looks perfect. Thanks for taking the time to locate and cite a reliable source. TJRC (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunnyvale

Can you do me a favor and step into the most recent Sunnyvale edit issue? The guy is pushing back, and I don't think he'll accept further pushback just from me. Jokeboy (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I hereby award TJRC this Barnstar for their insights and work at AFD Shakehandsman (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hart's Location, New Hampshire

None of the three citations included in the Federal elections section support your claim of the "town's reputation as belwether". Without a citation, the section fails notability, does not fall within Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Government and is most likely Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. It has an arbitrary start date, but worse, has no logical end, and within a decade or two would consume a huge portion of the page. It should be removed, or at least turned into it's own page (but I doubt it would meet notability) Cheers, Dkriegls (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for advice re quote

Thanks TJRC for your advice re the problem with the quote. I have put a response on my Talk page GrahamGreenleaf (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Format corrections at Sarah Chang

If you would have been paying attention, I was not the one to add the "trivia" as you sarcastically put it (diff here); also, I was not the one who wrote the accompanying text about tweeting. I demand an apology for your rudeness, when all I was doing was reformatting the previous editor's badly inserted BARE URL's. I took the flak for User:Grashazk. When you did the roll-back that you had intended, you could have added -- "Didn't mean to target Skol_fir for this" or something to that effect. It is a matter of courtesy to admit your mistakes, instead of leaving others to assume the worst intentions. --Skol fir (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

First, sorry about the erroneous revert. Looking at the cumulative changes, it had appeared that all the intervening edits were yours, and I missed the one by the first editor. Also, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by my not acknowledging you when I corrected that. TJRC (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. It was not my feelings that were hurt. I was unjustly blamed for "trivia" and making a false claim about the role of "tweeting." That was what bothered me, and the fact that you did not catch yourself when you realized that you had picked on the wrong person. I don't like to be wrongly accused. That's all. Don't forget that even edit summaries are permanent and anyone looking at the history of this page will think I was a klutz. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Talk:The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald

There was nothing legitimate about the talk page comments I removed. Those comments were full of personal attacks upon me by an anonymous user who has a hard time editing without making everything personal. The purpose of the talk page is to facilitate constructive dialogue toward improving the article, not impugning the motives or character of other editors. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 00:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Diana Yukawa Change

Hello TJRC. You have reverted the edits i made to Diana Yukawa's page but these were simply factual changes, not promotional as you state. As Diana's manager these amendments were correct. Please can you undo your revert and then I am happy to make the small changes that you feel are promtional... thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.136.96 (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. The first of your edits was factual and sourced, with only a little hype, and was retained.
Your second edit was almost entirely puffery and promotion. "Diana has lead an extraordinary life"; " revolutionary sound"; "cutting edge, innovative, modern sound"; "uses together effortlessly to craft original and powerful pieces of music capable of fitting a complete range of briefs"; "her fascinating heritage and life story", etc. This is, of course, the sort of promotional material a publicity-seeking manager is expected to produce for his or her clients, but Misplaced Pages is not the platform for it. Please see WP:NOTPROMOTION.
In addition, as Yukawa's manager, you have an obvious conflict of interest between your representation of Yukawa and Misplaced Pages's aim to have a neutral-POV article on her, so please read WP:COI (or the plain and simple conflict of interest guide) and take particular care to comply with it. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

64.228.156.103

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Assistance with Bloomberg Law

Hi-there. I have been working on the Bloomberg Law article, which is currently lacking any major information or citation. After seeking help through various WikiProjects without luck, I wanted to approach you about possibly taking a look at my draft to be uploaded to the current article because I have seen that you are active with other law related articles. I want to note that I do some work for Bloomberg and have openly acknowledged my conflict of interest. Any help would be greatly appreciated. My draft can be found here. Thank you --RivBitz (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but between crushing workload and an upcoming vacation, I do not anticipate doing much in Misplaced Pages for the next month or so. You'd likely be better served by asking someone else. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for getting back to me and enjoy your vacation! --RivBitz (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I recently ran an experiment deleting 100 random external links. Only 3 were reverted; you were one of the 3. Well done! --Gwern (contribs) 19:58 30 May 2012 (GMT) 19:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Judiciary Act of 1891, and Wong Kim Ark

Hi. This may not really make a big difference, but I thought you might want to know why the Judiciary Act of 1891 was included as a "See also" link in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. When the WKA article was being considered for Featured Article, someone questioned why the article said the case had been "appealed" to the Supreme Court, instead of being taken via a writ of certiorari. The reason appears to have been that when a lower court decision dealt with a constitutional issue (including a conflict between the Constitution and federal or state law), the Judiciary Act of 1891 said the losing side had a right to appeal directly and have the case heard by the Supreme Court. One FA reviewer really wanted a source for this — but there simply weren't any secondary sources to be found, and our interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1891 would of course had been original research. The compromise we reached in the end was to stick a link to the act in the "See also" section of the article; this clearly turned out to be too subtle, as your removal of said link illustrates. :-) I'm not sure there is any better way of dealing with this procedural point — or, for that matter, if it really needs to be dealt with at all (since I'm sure no one is going to raise it again now). If anyone does try to "correct" the article to say that it reached SCOTUS via certiorari as opposed to a direct appeal, I'll just point to the text of the opinion, which literally says the case was "appealed". Anyway, just so you'll know the background here. — Richwales 23:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation; that's a pretty funky compromise. I think it's best left out, and the reference you already have in the article pretty clearly states it was an appeal; it doesn't get much more authoritative than the text of the case itself; and its caption (APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA). But I won't object if it gets put back in (although it really doesn't meet the goal of explaining why there was a direct appeal). TJRC (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Oops. Yup. You're right. All this Lance craziness has me disoriented. I don't know if I'm on the talk page or the article. Good catch. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yum, pie! thanks. I'm steering clear of most editing on these, although I've reverted a few edits on some TdF articles where a well-meaning IP editor has struck through Armstrong's name; or promoted the second-comer to winner. One way or the other, the dust will settle in a week or two; no need to rush, is my feeling. TJRC (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Update section

Why did you change the text of the documentation of {{Update}} in this edit? The |type= parameter wasn't working? Debresser (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Right. Example here. When I checked the template's doc and talk page I noted the Feb 2012 advice "Use {{update section}} instead." If that's incorrect, and the section parameter can be made to work, please feel free to revert my edit when it works. TJRC (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
But this example shows it works! It says "This article is outdated. Please update this section to reflect recent events or newly available information." Debresser (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah. I'd expected it to say "This article is outdated..." I'll revise my edit, but personally continue using {{update section}}, whose wording is, I think, better. TJRC (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you. We could be bold and remove the type=section from the code, and replace its instances by Template:Update section. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
You're probably right, but my template-coding skills aren't up to the task. TJRC (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
If you remind me in another 2 weeks, I'll do that. I'll be a bit busy till then. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see this proposal. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

File rename of Adam Joseph Live At Cincinnati Pride 2010.png

Thank you for catching and correcting that error. It was very much appreciated. Sysmithfan (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to. TJRC (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Santa Cristo

Hi TJC, you probably guesed I am a newbie to Misplaced Pages and so I apologise if I unintentionally infringed promotional guidelines- rules when posting to ]. However I would like to make two points:

1. I thought what I wrote was neutral in tone and therefore that seems to be the key point when posting material to which one has a connection. isn't it? Perhaps it wasn't neutral enough. If so I apologise. I certainly did not intend to "sell it". After all this is a free, unfunded and not for sale piece of art so I don't stand to gain financially whatever.

2. I believe it is relevant and of interest to people studying this subject to be aware of www.santacristo.org I really have zero objection to an edit, even a brutal one that makes it short as you like, but it does not seem to serve the reader to remove all mention of something that is obviously relevant.

So please reconsider and I ask you to include some mention however large/small. For your reference there are supporting photos available if you feel one would be appropriate. I note that there are some on the page already. If you have a faceboook account you can see photos here

All the best

Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robingurney (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It isn't merely an issue of neutrality. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, documenting persons, things and subjects of notability. The article Crucifixion in the arts is not intended to exhaustively capture every reference to crucifixion in the arts; only those that have attained a degree of notability. There's no indication that your art project has sufficient notability to merit a discussion in the article.
With respect to neutrality and WP:COI, financial benefit is not the only consideration. Publicity (which is what I think you're looking for with this edit) is also part of it. In general, you should avoid making any edits that implicate WP:COI, as yours did. If you believe that your art piece is of sufficient notability to be worth a mention, discuss it on Talk:Crucifixion in the arts and see whether an editor without your bias agrees with you.
As an aside, my Misplaced Pages ID is TJRC, not TJC. I see there is also a TJC, but I have no relation to him or her. TJRC (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

TJRC (sorry for mistyping the the wrong handle) All makes sense of course and yes I am biased but then again I see the reaction of people and can only imagine the piece's notability will grow. I guess its too much to expect an editor to judge for inclusion based on artistic merit rather than notability. C'est la vie. Understand about COI. So in the words of the immortal Arnie, "I'll be back" TO Talk:Crucifixion in the arts when notability has reached further. Thanks for clarifying the position and excuse my clumsy but well-intentioned attempt at inclusion. Merry Christmas Robin Robingurney (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Orphan works in the United States. 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. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The reference was retained, in reference #5. The sentence for ref #5 was a direct link to the PDF so I simply turned it into a reference instead. Then I noticed the same material was referenced, albeit less completely, in the first sentence. According to the MOS (WP:LEADCITE), the lead shouldn't really be referenced (because the material will appear again in the article) and since the reference was simply for the definition of the term orphan work, it didn't seem to need any citation, especially in a lead section. I hope this clarifies. (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you please explain why the quotation marks were replaced around the phrase orphan work. It's a standard, valid term; why the hedging? Thank you. (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I am AGF but have noticed several other instances where the author links directly from the article to external sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Links (see external links). You probably missed those. I'll leave it to another more-seasoned wikipedian to correct them. Thank you.
  • I don't have time for this. Thank you for showing me how I'm wasting my time trying to raise the bar of WP. Good luck writing your stubs. Bye WP. Look for my work to appear as references in peer-reviewed journals.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadhenry (talk • contribs) 17:22, October 25, 2012‎
I was referring to the edit removing the reference in the lede here; but as I look closer, you weren't deletinga dead link. I've backed out my erroneous edit, and limited it to correcting the deletion of the reference. I'm sorry you're so obviously worked up about this. Whether you decide to stay or leave Misplaced Pages, I wish you well. TJRC (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Nice work in rewriting the Copeland "Anti-kickback" Act article, and for converting the page to an encyclopedic entry. Northamerica1000 02:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
HEY, thanks! ☺ TJRC (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Nice job on Copeland "Anti-kickback" Act. Keep up the good work! Buggie111 (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Southland Corp. v. Keating

  • Per WP:MOSINTRO: Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article. This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article..
  • Familiarity with who she is notwithstanding, I believe that enough people understand that "Sandra" is a woman's name that it would be obvious who "she" was if all the other names proximally mentioned are commonly understood as men's names ("William", "Clarence")
  • I don't see anything at WP:W2W that would support a contention that describing someone a "scholar" is POV. You'll have to provide more support for this if you want me to fix this.

Please direct your responses to my talk page (Or here with a {{talkback}} there if you'd rather keep it all in one place). Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk page at Han-na Chang

Please do not randomly revert corrections of grammar unless you yourself are an expert in English and know better: "This does not say that she has officially accepted the position" happens to be correct, and you reverted it back to the wrong version! I assume that you were not paying attention or were assuming that anonymous IP's are idiots! Either way, there is no excuse for reverting without reason.


BTW, I was the anonymous editor (with such a minor correction, I chose not to sign in from my smartphone), so I was justified in correcting my own grammar! That nullifies your reference to WP:TPO --Skol fir (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am an expert in English grammar, but that's beside the point. I was not correcting the grammar, I was reverting an edit made in violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines. The edit correcting the grammar was in violation of talk page edit guidelines. One does not edit the comments of another editor to correct grammar. I reverted that edit in violation. Your "BTW" is not "BTW" at all. You're saying that you were correcting your own grammar, and that's fine. For further info, please see the guideline WP:TPO, which I referenced in my edit summary. TJRC (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I capitulate. My first reaction was premature, as you had every right to revert my edit, not realizing at the time that I was the anonymous editor. Sorry for the initial tirade. I should have read your guideline for other person's comments. I did, but not until I had vented. Oops! --Skol fir (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
No biggie. Happy editing. TJRC (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Grace Park

Hello, TJRC. You have new messages at Foxj's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— 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 Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_30#Actresses
Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 10:57, 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 –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Hello, TJRC. You have new messages at TucsonDavid's talk page.
Message added 19:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, TJRC. You have new messages at TucsonDavid's talk page.
Message added 19:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oh, btw are you any good with scripts? TucsonDavidU.S.A. 19:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Not in the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages guidelines; see WP:FANSITE, item #11. TJRC (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Labor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

=D

 Hello TJRC, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni 03:42, 13 March 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

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.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages! 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)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Trademark may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |accessdate=June 11, 2013}}</ref> (now Samson Rope Technologies, Inc.), a ]-making company), featuring a depiction of the Biblical figure ] wrestling a lion<ref>{{cite web |title=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is Harry Ray. I'm not sure why you thought I was putting spam on Misplaced Pages. These are a legitimate additions to the page that help add valuable information. Can you please cite a part of Misplaced Pages's guidelines that specifically mark my links as spam? I really would like to know. Thanks.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Siletz Bay Music Festival may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Symphony Orchestra]], Music Director of the Portland Chamber Orchestra ], and former Music Director of the Colorado Springs Symphony, the New York Heritage Chamber

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:23, 13 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 Misplaced Pages 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 {{Update}} 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. WQUlrich (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TJRC. You have new messages at Talk:List of states and territories of the United States.
Message added 07:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TBrandley (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.)
Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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)