This is an archive of past discussions with User:TJRC. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

User talk:TJRC Archive 1: 2007 Archive 2: 2008 Archive 3: 2009 Archive 4: 2010 Archive 5: 2011 Archive 6: 2012 Archive 7: 2013 Archive 8: 2014 Archive 9: 2015 Archive 10: 2016 Archive 11: 2017 Archive 12: 2018 Archive 13: 2019 Archive 14: 2020

Thanks for the heads up, I am new to contributing to wikipedia and wasn't aware of all the guidelines. Will do so in future.

SongsignSongsign (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that these references are not appropriate for an Encyclopedia, because they are strictly relevant to the subject they offer additional information on the subject they provide images of example pages from selected works of the subject.

Furthermore the entry for Pepusch had been there some time without your objecting - I did not enter it, I merely updated the URL.

I can understand that the mention of Green Man Press is not essential nor strictly relating to the subject, and suggest that you let the references stand, but omit this mention.Cedriclee (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

See the discussion at WT:WikiProject Classical music#Copyright, WP:COI and WP:UNDUE issue. TJRC (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I had season tickets during the Brian Hoyer years at Michigan State. He was announced every game as born from North Olmsted, OH. It also says North Olmsted on his MSU Profile as well as his Cleveland Browns Profile. The NFL is wrong as he was not born in Lakewood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.185.119 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Two reliable sources say Lakewood; if you have a reliable source that says otherwise, please start a discussion on the talk page. TJRC (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.msuspartans.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/brian_hoyer_227568.html http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/9547/ http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/players/9547/ http://www.patriots.com/team/roster/brian-hoyer/6ce0576f-3a79-4e8a-adfe-0ec114b82f37/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.185.119 (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, two of those do support you (the other two don't mention birthplace). Let's bring up a discussion on the talk page. My personal inclination is to believe the Plain Dealer, the only source that distinguishes between birth place and residence, but let's get a consensus. TJRC (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that the Cleveland Browns and New England Patriots websites both said he's born in North Olmsted right? Not to mention all the articles you see about him are out of North Olmsted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.185.119 (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Brian Hoyer. I mention both the Browns and Patriots sites; neither gives a birthplace, only a hometown. TJRC (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Alas, it's just a stub. I'm not sure how to link to it, so I just repeated the prior reference to the law library position. But here's the jstor page; for some reason the google link worked yesterday, doesn't today, but is the top hit. Says it's a stub, tho. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3480115?uid=3739256&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103315236637 Thanks for looking into this! 174.62.68.53 (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I found the same article, in full, at [1] yesterday. And I see that there was a start on an article on the case itself. I may flesh this out a bit. TJRC (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It's something curious that you hear on news and may even learn in school, but there's not alot about this sort of minutia on the web, and it really changes the dynamics of why things are done. 174.62.68.53 (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:ELDUP link at the 2014 State of the Union Address article. It seemed helpful to be an EL as well as a reference, but I wasn't aware of the guideline that allowed it. I always appreciate a good explanatory edit summary like that. Best, Bahooka (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, TJRC -- concerning your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_foie_gras_law&diff=593372732&oldid=593367005 . The link had been simply "[[Factory farming]]", but a couple days ago I changed that to "[[Intensive animal farming|Factory farming]]" . Now, upon studying your edit, I see (in Wikipedia:NOPIPE#When_not_to_use) that it says "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects." So, how about if I change that link back to "[[Factory farming]]" ? Mksword (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO doesn't really discuss whether a redirect should be used; but my understanding has always been that the preferred form is to use the actual article name, and if the pertinence of the linked-to article title to the subject article is not apparent, to add an explanation (that's the "brief annotation" bit). Given that the article titles are intended to be the best title for the subject matter, I think it's almost always a good idea to use that. The real principle you want to make sure you don't cross is WP:EGG, where the reader is directed to something they did not expect to be directed to; or doesn't understand why when they get to the landing page. Based on this, I nearly always like to use the actual article title. But, other than the "brief annotation" I mention above, I don't think that that's enshrined in any guideline or policy.

In this particular case, I think Intensive animal farming and its relationship to California foie gras law is pretty clear. I'd just leave it at that; I don't think any annotation is needed, and it's at least as relevant as Factory farming. TJRC (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot, TJRC! Mksword (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do you worry about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter202 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Whilst" is a perfectly good word in British English. Please would you not change this useage in the various lists of shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

But only in in British English; it is archaic in American English. Please see WP:COMMONALITY. I included a link in the edit summaries. TJRC (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As the lists are written in British English, WP:ENGVAR applies. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I second this. Please respect WP:ENGVAR and stop removing the word from articles. Thank you. Number 57 07:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is respecting WP:ENGVAR. There's more to that guideline than its first paragraph. WP:COMMONALITY is part of WP:ENGVAR and calls for language common to all varieties of English to be used when available. "Whilst" is good British English, but archaic in American English; "while" is both good British English and good American English. Thus, under WP:ENGVAR, "while" should be used.

You won't see me making edits that "correct" British English to American English (or vice versa) such as changing "labour" to "labor". That would violate WP:ENGVAR. But changing to a word that works in both varieties is compelled by, not prohibited by, WP:ENGVAR.

Some of my edits use neither "while" nor "whilst", where there's actually a better word (e.g., when the simultaneity implied by "while/"whilst" is not present or important to the sentence -- what Fowler calls a "weak conjunction)". For those cases, a simple "and" is usually best.

Also, you'll find that I'm as likely to correct from American English to British English where that is the original language of the article, or the subject of the article has specific ties to a region that justifies that. I think I've corrected a number of Americanisms in Emerson, Lake and Palmer, for example, over the years. TJRC (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring WP:RETAIN - "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another". Number 57 22:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No, not at all. This is not editing to switch from one valid use of English to another; It is to switch to a use of English valid in both. That's really what that the commonality provisions of WP:ENGVAR are for: to assure the encyclopedia is maximally accessible to the widest audience. TJRC (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is - "whilst" and "while" are both valid words, and you are switching from one to another. Number 57 22:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at While#Whilst and the sources cited there (including the British and Canadian style guides). It may be an eye-opener for you. TJRC (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've already seen that, and it makes no difference what a couple of style guides say - it's still perfectly acceptable British English. And please don't start an edit war. Number 57 22:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page visitor) @TJRC: Not sure if you watch WT:MOS or have been told about it, but you may want to see WT:MOS#ENGVAR violations. You are, imo, quite right. --Stfg (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi TJRC - in response to your recent edit (Hello, I'm TJRC. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC))

It would be very much appreciated if you attempted to contact me first as all of the revisions you made were not an advertising attempt. In particular, the section you edited was the "feature" section which clearly only listed features of the software. You have now caused a great deal of work for me to reproduce that as you simply deleted it.

Also, you may have noticed the number of revisions to that article in an attempt to raise my number of "edits" so that I can upload an image to Wikipedia. It would be greatly appreciated if you returned the text on "Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools" to its previous state, and SUGGEST modifications.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketeer415 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The edits certainly appear as advertising to me; you may not really recognize it, given your apparent role. Of all the edits you've made the only one that appears productive is the attempt to add a logo to Signavio although that broke formatting pretty badly, it was easy enough to correct, and I've done that.

I think the entry for Signavio in Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools is now in good shape, and see no reason to modify it further. Given your apparent WP:COI, you should forgo edits on that page, and on Signavio, and instead suggest edits on their respective talk pages. TJRC (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You clearly have not read through the entire page and edited removed comments for wikipedian uses. There are advertorial descriptions on the page that you chose not address. The features listed in the most recent revision are not advertorial, and with your removal, do not provide wikipedia readers with the correct representation of the tool. The section calls for features - not removal of features per TJRC's personal impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketeer415 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Judging from [2] and [3], it's apparent that you don't have a consensus for your edits here. TJRC (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Those edits were made to appease you, so that you would stop harassing me for obviously obeying the rules, but being bullied into making and undoing revisions.

I have reported the issue, and requested to have Users TJRC and Excirial blocked from Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketeer415 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I note that you reverted the removal of cited material. My first instinct was the same, but I checked deeper, and have started a discussion at Talk:Steven_Stayner#Removal_of_some_cited_material_about_CARY_Stayner, and i hope you will contribute. Fiddle Faddle 10:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes. Am I still required to send the email to "[email protected]", or is that covered after your update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketeer415 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You should be good now. The file previously had no verifiable indication of any license or other permission; I changed it to clarify that its use as a logo was appropriate without requiring permission. TJRC (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for PRODding Filemail. But a paid advocate dePRODded it.

I have tagged it for speedy deletion now.

The page now starts:

"This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because — article was recently edited by the now-blocked paid User:Schmidthoff, a sockpuppet of the <http://www.freelancer.com/u/chaklalajob.html> who has recently taken on a paid job to edit this article. Article was first created by a one-edit SPA who I suspect was another paid sockpuppet. Article reads like a news release. Please delete per CSD G11."

One tip: May I suggest you visit your Twinkle preferences panel and enable PROD logging and CSD logging.

If you reply, I kindly request that you move the conversation to my talk page. I shall not watchlist your talk page.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unforgettableid (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Thailand alpine skiers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I fail to understand how your revision of my supposed correction to line 48 is correct. Please clarify.

Here is a part of the revision sentence:

"She also spoke with police negotiators, telling them those she had shot made easy targets,...."

bold emphasis mine on what I think is a clerical error.

How can this be correct? I'm not a genius, but I'm not completely without English skills, either.

It makes no sense to me. It seems to me that one of those words, either "shot" or "made", is redundant and should be removed.

Please explain.

Alpine Joy (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a common use, as in "made [themselves] easy targets", i.e. easy to strike. "Many" is not the right word here. TJRC (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see where I made my mistake. My error. Thanks for correcting me. Although I think if I was writing the sentence, I would have written:

"....telling them those she had shot had made easy targets.... I missed the first "had", and then the sentence made no sense to me. Actually, even without any "hads" at all the sentence does make sense, so My Bad all around! Oh well. For a little while there, I was so sure and up on my high horse. Thanks for your constructive help!

Alpine Joy (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that that would be an improvement and would avoid reader confusion. Why don't you go ahead and make that edit? TJRC (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok! :-)

Alpine Joy (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I was a programmer at System Development Corporation in 1967-1969 and worked on the SAGE system from 1967 to 1968. I remember seeing a printed sheet of joke instructions for the SAGE computer, the AN/FSQ-7 (Q-7 for short), including the HCF as well as "shred tape" and "rewind card reader" and others. I recently contacted Paul Cudney, a co worker there, and asked him about it. He recalls that the author of the piece was "Q Septimus Maximus" (I.e. Q 7 the great). I have asked him if he kept a copy of it, but have not yet seen his reply. I doubt that he did for 47 years. I recall hearing at that time (1967) that the incident reportedly occurred some time previously at a SAGE site, possibly North Bay, Ontario, the test site, or perhaps even a live SAGE sector. I can't cite a source, since the only source I have is that piece of paper I saw with my own eyes 47 years ago.

The existing article attributes it to the IBM System 360, but I doubt that, since the sheet I saw contained some instructions that referred to drum storage, which was available on the Q-7 but not the 360. Both were IBM products, and the sheet may have originated with their programmers. Ronenfield (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Ronenfield (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have any kind of source that we can use to reference this, that would be great. It would be a worthy thing to add if it's supported by more than personal memory. TJRC (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

How many personal testimonies would it take to constitute a source?68.36.69.42 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is to reply on published sources, so no amount of personal testimonies is really adequate. You can read more at WP:RS. BTW, I'm going to post something on the talk page, but the earliest published mention I can find is in a 1967 Datamation magazine. I'm sure it predated that, though. TJRC (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

THe point of discussing HSD (Halt and Self Destruct) in a talk page is i doubt such a thing will ever make it into a published magazine or journal, or even generally well recognized consolidation as such things as the JARGON file. The actual implementation of HSD makes a good beer story but, will ultimately be lost to the mists of time unless the perpetrator somehow gets it into his obit or some "Last Lecture". --108.18.187.241 (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that you have listed the find links app by Edward Betts on your user space. Would you mind explaining how it works. I have tried to feed in article titles and all I get is ""searching for article xxxxxxx 0 found (7 total)"". My question is what follows after these results. Answer on my talk page. Thanks in advance. Juhuyuta (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be that the text your trying really does not appear in Wikipedia; or it does appear and is already linked. Here's one to try: put in "Sister city" and search on that. There's an article on the "sister cities" concept Twin towns and sister cities, but many articles that refer to a "sister city" do not link to it. When I try it, I get a result listing a few dozen articles. What are you searching on? TJRC (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to revert the same addition, but I just had to go and look at the two immediate citations.. lo and behold: there it really was, in e-print! I didn't have the heart to warn the user with an "Um, really?" for that edit message they used.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary; thanks for catching my error. Foolishly, I saw only the first reference; in comparison mode, I missed that there was a second one. (Although with that Tarzan-like syntax of "He second youngest of 10 children," this is not exactly the LA Times' most shining moment, is it?) TJRC (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I was notified that you was the one who deleted my additions to the Wind Evergy Software page. Could you please clarify why you did this so I can fix whatever was wrong and put it back up? I don't see how the information about Breeze that I addded differs from all the other product specific information on the same page? /Fredrik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrik84larsson (talk • contribs) 08:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. It looks like your questions have already been addressed by other editors here, here, here and here, so I'll avoid piling on. If you have further questions, let me know. TJRC (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have revoked talk page access and extended the block, as well as posted an identifying {{whois}} on the page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. TJRC (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Law for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your 'welcome back' email. I was out of commission for the better part of a year due to injuries and illness. But I am OK now. PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know you were having health issues. In that case, I'm doubly glad to see you back. TJRC (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful actions at First Amendment to the United States Constitution and your wise comments at Talk:First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I strongly agree with everything you've stated on the talk page.

Hopefully this won't become much of an issue with the other user attempting to add back in the lower-court stuff repeatedly.

Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for the help with creating Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I received a message from you informing me that you had removed multiple external links from some edits I made on the pages for Phill Niblock, Sol LeWitt, Eva Hesse, Romare Bearden, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, William Wegman, Richard Tuttle, Neil Jenney, and Willem de Kooning. I have read the Wikipedia guidelines on external links and now understand my errors. However, I do not appreciate my edits being entirely removed. If the inclusion of such external links were the only issues, I or someone else could have easily removed them. I would like to know why all of my edits were completely eliminated. Thank you.

209.156.241.131 (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Julia

Your edits appear to be solely for the purpose of adding links to the wadsworth.org website, and not for the improvement of the articles being edited. I'm going to guess that you have some affiliation there, and your edits of this type represent a conflict of interest with Wikipedia objectives. You appear to be interested only in adding eternal links to publicize the Wadswork site. TJRC (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Yes so I see, thank you for informing me. Is it acceptable if I include one link to the actual archive pages for the artist's MATRIX show? For example: "In 1975, Sol LeWitt presented twelve corn stalk drawings in the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art's third MATRIX exhibition." If this is not permissible, would adding this page as a reference be alright?

209.156.241.131 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Julia

You should first familiarize yourself with the conflict-of-interest guideline at WP:COI. It's not clear what your relationship wuith the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art is, but there's clearly something going on there.

For the article where you wish to add your Wadsworth passages, post a note on the corresponding talk page suggesting the edit. If you get encouraging responses, go ahead and make it. The key is that editors who don't have the promotional motivation that you have agree that the edit should be made.

As an alternative to adding the text in the body, you may instead want to suggest adding it as an external ink, if you believe it complies with the guidelines at WP:EL. Either way, whether it is added as text in the body or as an external link, you should have someone who does not have your COI agree that it's a good edit. If no one without a COI thinks it's a good edit, it ought not to get made.

Definitely do not add it in the references section, as a stand-alone link. References are used to support statements in the agreement, not just pointers out to another site (that's what External links section is for). However, if you add it as text to the body following the procedure as above, it would be appropriate to do it so that the link to Wadsworth is formatted as a reference, rather than as an embedded EL.

This is one approach; others that are appropriate may occur to you as you read the WP:COI guideline. TJRC (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a second reference supporting Felicia Day's birthday! Much appreciated. --Yamla (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was mighty nice of you! Just doing what I can. Best, --Nabak (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope the new article will grow more! (Thank goodness the Houston Library allows people to see Chronicle articles!)

I started out with an article on Ghulam Bombaywala.. then I found out he bought a stake in Stop N Go, and I remember the Stop N Gos growing up in Houston. And doing research on that resulted in me being curious about Diamond Shamrock. There were those in Houston too.

I think more Wikipedians should consider researching things from the late 1980s and 1990s that may not be current/have much of an internet presence now but are easily verifiable through searches of electronic newspaper articles. I think the journalists who wrote the articles will be happy that people are again reading their work and that they will be recognized for it. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for removing my blog as a link to the photo by Stuart Franklin, but I think you are missing something: Franklin has complained about copyright violation. This is something Wikipedia takes seriously and I expect the photo will have to go, sooner or later. But, unless Franklin comes after me again, I will leave this to others. CCBC (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm planning on following up with a note on his talk page. I probably will not have the time today. TJRC (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Done now: see here. TJRC (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A few days ago, I used the word "which" in the article Mercury (planet). Someone changed it to "that", which would be American usage in that context. I changed it back to "which", but now you've changed it to "that" again, apparently under the impression that I was imposing my preferred usage on someone's original text. You referred me to WP:COMMONALITY, but my actions were in accordance with it, and yours were not!

I'll change it back to "which" one last time. If anyone changes it again, I'll give up in disgust.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Johann Hari#Does "Religion: None (atheist)" imply that atheism is a religion? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Rodw. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Minehead because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. — Rod ^talk 20:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Note, this is a somewhat embarrassing incident in which I meant to remove advertising and inadvertently reverted an edit that had already removed it. Oops. TJRC (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Per your helpful explanation on the article's talk page after removing the prod tag, I have nominated it for deletion to facilitate further discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I was aware that the "Wasn't the pianola..." section was an old thread, but the matter is still far from settled: the article still contains a section of irrelevant material about player pianos and the like, added by one or more good-faith editors who did not quite parse out what the phrase "sound recording" means. I crammed it all together under a new "Prehistory" heading a couple of years ago, but the material needs to be either deleted or split off into a new umbrella article about mechanical musical instruments, which did not exist the last time I looked -- there are only articles about music boxes, player pianos and other specific types, which could very usefully be a list of links in such an umbrella article. I figure I'll probably get around to doing it myself eventually if nobody more familiar with that subject notices the need and takes up the task. The purpose of my addition to the talk page was prophylactic.

I've re-revised the heading of the other section to "78 RPM gear ratio claim". Your deletion of my previous word choice "myth" is fair enough -- it is a very loaded word -- but some indication of doubt seems descriptively desirable and justified, as that is the tone set by the initial posting several years ago. AVarchaeologist (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. I left this reply on my talk page as well:
I agree that it should be added. Will you do so? I think I will delete the last warning on his talk page and add a note. Donner60 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, the user has been blocked. I have added a note supporting an unblock request and wrote that you had verified his last edit when he tried to make a serious edit. Despite the childish emotion in the unblock request, I thought it only fair to give the user a break since he ultimately figured out the right way to do add this information. Donner60 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, I noticed your post here today and while browsing your user page, I noticed the phrase "passed away" under "periodic wikignoming". Interestingly, (yes, that's debatable,) I'm currently on a campaign to remove "passed away" from Wikpedia articles (minus quotations, and references of course) via AWB. I've removed over 70 instances and I'm only into the Ds. Keep up the good fight. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks, and same back to you too. I used to just check on the "Julliard" misspelling (because I once made that mistake myself, and, having realized it, now react virulently to it like only the converted can). But as I added a few, I started to cheat with some searchable links as you see here.

I keep meaning to look into this AWB thing. From my admittedly superficial review, it looks like it has quite the learning curve. TJRC (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, out of the box, AWB is still pretty useful even with its learning curve. We just have to be careful to check our edits before saving them, because we can wind up screwing stuff up pretty badly. One thing that is really awesome (but also very complicated) about it, is that you can do complicated find and replaces by using "regular expressions" (also known as "Regex"). I'll admit, regex has been kicking my ass, but I did figure out a way to create a regular expression that will look at "List of" articles I select and remove all instances of parental ratings like "(TV-MA-L)" and all its variations for example, whereas normally if you wanted to remove that sort of content, you'd have to go line by line and manually delete everything. But you can also set up standard find/replace rules, and it has a lot of rules already built in. When you use AWB, you first set up a list of pages you want to edit. This is accomplished from a dropdown box and can be generated from the New Pages feed, your own Watchlist, a Wikipedia search, etc. Then you click start and it'll go through those pages, make changes automatically, make changes based on your find/replace rules, etc. I've set mine up to replace all smartquotes with straight quotes, for example. I don't use AWB to its full potential by any means, but it's a great tool for improving articles quickly, and I wind up editing a far more diverse spectrum of articles than if I just stuck to my usual watchlist. If you're curious about regular expressions, I found this video helpful along with the awesome tool she created here Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, to help clarify the misunderstanding, the tag you saw that said "indefinite" was probably the expiry for the move protection. The page was already move-protected indefinitely, and I left that protection the same. However, I simply added a (different) protection for the editing half of it, which expires in two weeks. Hope that clears things up, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. This was one of those "oh, crap" moments, when I noticed the date on the log just as I hit "Save Page." Sorry for the wasting your time, but I did learn something, so it wasn't a total waste. TJRC (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. I'd included the link to the Senate vote in external sources for the edification of the more curious. The vote was "bipartisan," as you note. Only a few "D"s supported, but more interesting I thought was the ideological gulf between "R"s who opposed: the liberal Weicker, the centrist Cohen, and the libertarian/conservative Goldwater on the other. I don't know the reason that the three non-voting members didn't cast ballots, but that was curious as well: Zorinksy, clearly the most conservative "D" in that Senate, and Rockefeller and Heinz (who, except for a couple of years, rarely missed a vote), whose politics weren't terribly dissimilar. Activist (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "bipartisan"; quite the opposite, it was along party lines, pretty much with only Republican support. I think the link to the govtrack site is a good one, thanks for adding it. I think most confirmed positions should have such a link. TJRC (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi TJRC,

Your message on my page asked that I respond here, but instructions on your page say to respond on mine, so I hope this is okay. I am truly sorry not to have provided citations for Claiborne Pell and Clay Pell. The information on their selection as recipients of our advocacy award is available on our website and in our conference program booklet. I don't know of anything else to cite. Is the following acceptable?:

Official Program: 2014 Northeast Conference, "Sustaining Communities through World Languages." March 2014, Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, p. 64.

Thank you for letting me know.

RRKlineRRKline (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about responding here, that's fine. I usually like to keep the whole conversation in one place, but the odd standard Wikipedia default practice is to each reply on each others' pages, so that standard message reads that way.

I've taken a shot at re-adding it with the reference (I googled for "Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages" and eventually found the page with the award) for Clay Pell: [4]. If that looks good to you, you can make similar edits on the appropriate pages. You don't need to use the "cite web" template, but I like it.

I note you've made similar edits on a lot of other biographical articles. I only reverted on the couple that I have on my watchlist, but really, all of the articles that include this should have citations.

One other point: some of those other articles may have a section for "awards" or the like. In those cases, you should try to make your addition consistent with the existing style, which will generally be a one-line listing of the award and year.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! TJRC (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I will recheck all my edits -- there weren't many awards lists in the entries I edited, but I always listed our award with others in such cases. Assume I can use the same citation for everyone, but let me know if that's a(nother) mistake! I really appreciate your help! RRKlineRRKline (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

For some reason you keep trying to suppress the use of the word "copyrighted" claiming it is incorrect. I mention that the OED and two other dictionaries I checked say it is correct, and you say that's not good enough because the OED is British and the reference is to US law. First, while the OED is British, Merriam-Webster is American. Second, how about the last sentence of the first paragraph of the US Copyright Office's "About" page? "The Office’s registration system and the companion recordation system constitute the world’s largest database of copyrighted works and copyright ownership information." ^[1] Yes, there are lawyers who decry the verbing of this former noun. But if the dictionaries and the copyright office itself have gone that way, the battle is over. Thomas Phinney (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I am proposing to merge High-prssure area into Anticyclone, the same thing. Please feel free to enter the discussion.

Pierre cb (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

See here and here. (I am notifying you because you participated in the earlier discussion on these categories.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is the rule against updating inning scores as they happen. Also, if you're looking at the line score of a not-completed game, you don't know if the game was suspended, in progress, or just not up to date. It's better to just wait until the game is over. This is an encyclopedia, not espn.com. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

NOTNEWS doesn't say that. In fact, it says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information." NETNEWS discusses what "verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia", i.e., whether an article should be written on an event or not. it is a notability policy. Given that the 2014 World Series is a notable event meriting an article, the article belongs on Wikipedia; that's not in dispute. Once that is met, obviously it should include current and up-to-date-information. TJRC (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the WS isn't notable. I'm saying that a game shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia until it is completed. Without any context, a partial line score is ambiguous and not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia to cover events after the fact; not a place for people to "find out the score of the game". — X96lee15 (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're arguing. I'm pointing out that NOTNEWS does not support your position, and actually refutes it. I'm not aware of any guideline or policy that says editors should not maintain current and accurate information about a notable event, even if the event is in the process of change. NOTNEWS certainly doesn't say that. NOTNEWS is about the eligibility of the article to exist; with respect to content, NOTNEWS says the opposite of what you suggest. TJRC (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Undersigned had created article Legal awareness in may 2012. Since then I updated and improved the article many times in past one and half year.

I will be happy if you help me in reassessing tags in article namely {{Multiple issues|confusing|date=February 2013|reason=Laudable effort has been put into this article, but it seems rambling and incoherent.}}{{essay-like|date=February 2013}}

and also

may be article is due for udating class status futher from {{WikiProject Law|class=Start|importance=Mid}}.

I suppose a peer feedback will help me improve the artle content still further. You are one of experinced and active WikiProject Law members, and I request your kind support in this respect.

Mahitgar (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

When you have a moment, could you weigh in on my suggestion in Talk:Copyright_notice that the Copyright notice article be expressly limited to u.s. law (all that it now covers anyway) and renamed accordingly. (E.g. "Copyright Notice (U.S. law)." The article could use some work. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federalist51 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wikipedia:Public domain page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)