This page is an archive of past discussions. 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

You know this edit just compounded the error of making an edit solely to avoid a redirect right? While it is basically pointless to make an edit to avoid an edit, especially if all that is don is change from [[redirect]] to [[target|redirect]], once the edit has been made it is even more pointless to revert that edit. The proper way to handle it is to make a comment on the user's talk page and mention that it is basically pointless to make the edit and suggest that they do other more constructive things. -- Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the reversion makes the source easier to read and edit. See WP:R#NOTBROKEN: "unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form." TJRC ( talk) 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Consolidating your edit here. That's a reason not to make the edit, that is not a justification to make a reversion once the edit has been made. But hey, whatever floats you boat. Just letting you know that the reversion was basically a pointless one. :) -- Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not pointless. The first edit made the article more difficult to read in source form. The reversion made it less difficult to read in source form. See? TJRC ( talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have your talk page on my watchlist for the next few days, you don't need to leave a note on my talk page letting me know. If five extra words makes a page too difficult for someone to read, then that article has far more problems than someone having made an edit to avoid a redirect. But like I said, whatever floats your boat. ;) -- Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

May your boat float well, too! TJRC ( talk) 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your revert on the Michael Collins article. There are a couple of other paragraphs about the same type of lame "pop culture" statements about Michael Collins being a failure. Could those other articles fall into the same class of comments as the assertion you reverted? Thanks WVhybrid ( talk) 03:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Since I wrote to you yesterday, I went back and re-read the last few chapters of Collins' biography, "Carrying the Fire". One thing that come across very clearly is that neither Jethro Tull or the manga describe Collins state of mind either while in orbit around the moon or after returning to earth. Collins clearly states that he turned down a return to the moon as lunar module commander, choosing instead to move to Washington and joining the Nixon administration as a Deputy Secretary of State. WVhybrid ( talk) 02:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort — truly appreciated. Why can't people like 71.203.159.204 make that effort themselves instead of bickering? (Sorry, had to get this off my chest, seen this sort of thing once too often now). Cheers, Michael Bednarek ( talk) 01:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well handled. We need more editors like you. Foofighter20x ( talk) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page... Foofighter20x ( talk) 23:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D.B.- a novel (cover).jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 07:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am continuing to watch this page to deal with unjustified removals. DGG ( talk) 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

hi there, thanks for providing the citation, does it also apply to the para above (so we can take out that fact date as well)?-- SasiSasi ( talk) 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

can you do me a favour and add any intext citations you are aware off...? I think I will do some moving to improve the structure and focus (some of the stuff that is missing intext citation is really good, would be a shame to loose it). Dont worry about over referencing, once some of the mayor moving is done I can remove any unnecessary citations again. Also, feel free to add “citation needed” to anything that’s new to you and in need of intext ref, I will try and find refs for it then.-- SasiSasi ( talk) 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re globalising the article I am not quite sure yet about how to balance the need/use for country specific examples in the copyright article... with regards to "poor man's copyright" I included a summary in copyright and the more detailed stuff in the "pmc" article. There are some excellent country specific copyright articles (see list at end of copyright) so any detailed stuff can be moved there. -- SasiSasi ( talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the "clear" template (and sorry about the pun)! I saw it when I saw your edit, and I immediately realized that's a much better way to go, that I hadn't known about before. And thank you too for your edits on that page. I think what you did with the anime section is exactly what I was hoping someone would come along and do. By the way, I hope you didn't mind my earlier opposition to pulling out a separate pop culture article, but I really believe the attackers would just have gone after it, and I think things are now working out very well. All the best. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration committee has passed an injunction that prohibits engaging in "in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles." -- Tznkai ( talk), Clerk for the Arbitration Committee 17:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've warned him about it. -- Eaglestorm ( talk) 14:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Her lower back tattoo appears to be a hand holding a purple Nelumbo. So far, there has been difficulty in obtaining any form of written or typed proof, but there are several photos on the web... ( LonerXL ( talk) 01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

See http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3APublic_domain&diff=270294098&oldid=270272631. I added add'l clarifying references to further support the edit you reverted. Good enough?-- Elvey ( talk) 20:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Max Matsuura Disbarment Gilroy Unified School District Malaspina University-College Exile (Japanese band) United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Perris Union High School District Hitoe Arakaki Community property Nothing from Nothing Maki Nomiya Straightway School Mitsuru Igarashi List of Yale University people Berkeley Unified School District Archivist of the United States International Standard Audiovisual Number Dilworth Elementary School Everlasting (song)

Cleanup Suspension (school punishment) Holy Cross Convent School Nobel Prize controversies Merge Commander in Chief (TV series) Easter season Presidential directive Add Sources Heartsdales Kylix programming tool Hiroko Shimabukuro Wikify Jerry Maguire Royalties California School for the Deaf, Fremont Expand Article Five of the United States Constitution Southwestern United States History of copyright law

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba ( talk) 16:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I've done some work on the film request page - thanks for the prompt! You may want to join the film project if you're not already a member. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not cite the episode itself? ViperSnake151 13:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, general fixes must of been on when I was using AWB. Thanks for notifying me of it. I'll be a bit more careful in the future. VX! ^talk 21:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear TJRC: I note you consolidated Supreme Court Historical Society and Oyez into See Also/internal links. I understand putting them in one place, and I'm with you on that. On the other hand, I don't see the harm in putting beside them an external link, as I had written them originally -- in effect we get double duty, and leave it to the reader where they want to go. That's my thought. In lieu of putting it first on the discussion page, I thought I'd bounce it off you. What are your thoughts? Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 16:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Stan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mark Blaxill, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Blaxill. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Edcolins ( talk) 20:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Since User:PJHaseldine did not see fit to notify you, please be aware of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_11#Yvonne_Bradley. THF ( talk) 14:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yvonne Bradley's deletion review is ongoing here.--- PJHaseldine ( talk) 15:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way it's not possible to link to a rollback outside a login session, and if possible you should use undo. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 09:25 18 March 2009 (UTC).

Feel free to remove the additional tilde(s). -- Madchester ( talk) 18:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

agree - I did that accidentally while reviewing his edits Tedickey ( talk) 09:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the bot is removing the orphan tag on Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, even though the page is still an orphan under the criteria listed at WP:ORPHAN. I suspect the bot is counting links from DAB pages such as CRA. TJRC ( talk) 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a bug with WP:AWB GF. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough 12:37 27 March 2009 (UTC).

I don't have any strong opposition to migration of US material to UIS copyright, but that means readers have to look in two places much of the time. I think the migration project is quixotic: people will constantly put US-centric material in general copyright page because there is so much US material being generated all the time. You will be like the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike. Or See http://webhome.idirect.com/~totton/Animated/sisyphus.html PraeceptorIP ( talk) 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; I never knew there were two different types. Good to know. Thanks for the heads-up. SKS2K6 ( talk) 20:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• We heard the clerk read the verdicts on the radio. Now AP story posted: ^[1] Ucla90024 ( talk) 22:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! I added formatting, stubs, talk page, etc. Bearian ( talk) 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the mistakes you noticed. I fixed the missed label on the 'BoA' tracklist but before I do the other change I want your feedback on some points I made in the articles talk page. Thanks again for the eye. :) Danielquasar ( talk) 07:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel, that's a good fix. I replied on the talk page; I think we should explain the missing 8 tracks. TJRC ( talk) 17:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted; not him. It's plainly a recent photograph and Spector hasn't looked anything like that in about 40 years. Whoever posted it to Flickr was extracting the urine. Rodhull andemu 06:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. TJRC ( talk) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of The Cohens and Kellys at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shubinator ( talk) 21:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a brief moment of fear that I had done something terribly wrong when I saw your message at my talk (smile)! Oh well, thanks for correcting my transgression! Best wishes, -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I added an indent before your comment at talk:crucifixion, so I guess I'll give you a reciprocal tsk. (Just kidding.) More seriously, I think the sourcing you added improved that section very well. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

new info. I'd appreciate your thoughts.-- Elvey ( talk) 23:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Ping! I'd really appreciate add'l feedback there, or here even if it's to disagree. Your input has been really helpful.-- Elvey ( talk) 18:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

for cleaning the article Aisha Syed.-- Juliaaltagracia ( talk) 18:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. TJRC ( talk)

My original statement and reedit came this 1988 paper Kate Bush: Enigmatic chanteuse as pop pioneer (Soundscapes, Spring 1988. Holly Cruse, University of Illinois, Urbana, Champaign) which is in the further reading section of the Kate Bush article. The sentence was deleted due to "dubious" content. Most of that particular section of the article comes from that paper which was found by another editor. I put that paper in the further reading section and added material from it. This was a year ago. I theorized that the good faith editor thought the material was "dubious" because there was no citations listed. This type of thing has happened in many articles I have edited. This is why I rarely put articles in the further reading section anymore. On the merits the material is not dubious either. The period under discussion was a stagnating period in British music history. Glam was winding down and the punk had not yet occurred. I put the exact quote back (in the original edit it was paraphrased) for 2 reasons. 1. to emphasize the sourcing was not “dubious” 2. It also occurred to me that the my paraphrasing might have been “dubious” to the editor who deleted it so the exact quoting method something I do not normally like to do might be the only to leave no doubt. Edkollin ( talk) 03:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we are using it as a reference cite I had to take it out of the Further Reading section. Which is to bad because it relay is the type of analytical piece that should be in the Further Reading section. But as I noted above if it is common for good faith editors to understandably miss material cited from Further reading or External Link sections of articles. There a lot of material particular the discussion for relative lack of US success that should be in the article in some way. But there is no real place for it the way the article is currently constructed. Any idea's about this dammed if you do dammed if you don't situation? Edkollin ( talk) 15:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to your notation on my page, please see my reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmetzger ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it's creepy to discover that I have a vandal lurking on my user page (joke)! Actually, I've been thinking of creating a box with the caption "This editor is trapped inside my userbox and can't get out!" -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It looks like the anime image at Crucifixion is about to be deleted, for what I think are valid reasons. Given your interest, I figured I'd drop you a note, in case you want to look for an alternative. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction: I said that too soon. It was incorrectly labeled as orphaned, so I reverted that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI - this appears to be a complete copy of copyrighted material at [1]     7    ^{talk |  Δ |}   04:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you passed it on the the original author - thanks.     7    ^{talk |  Δ |}   04:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Also, don't worry about templating this regular; it saves time. TJRC ( talk) 06:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks  ;)     7    ^{talk |  Δ |}   06:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: www.wikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Eternal_september

September 1993 is when AOL users joined useNet; since then, AOL has dropped useNet.

But Google Groups means it's still September 1993. I made mention of this at the wikiPedia link above, but was immediately reverted.

I gave examples of how these “Chronic Noobs” act:

“People Posting via Google Groups often end their posts with a multi-line Signature block that can't be filtered out.

Normally, signatures are delimited by the "-- \n" line; unfortunately, Google removes the whitespace at the end of the line, thus breaking the delimiter.

Confusingly, Outlook Express and Windows Mail don't add the ">" prefix to lines quoted from a post made via Google Groups.

Windows Live Mail adds the ">" prefix to each of these lines. Microsoft has delcared that Windows Live Mail is the successor Outlook Express and Windows Mail. ”.

By the way, I've had no luck editing WikiPedia, I always get 100 percent reverted, it makes my blood boil, so, for me, this conversation is over. 01:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Relf ( talk • contribs)

Thank you. Excellent job spacing the graphics etc. on the article, and yes it is EXACTLY what I meant. Well done.-- Read-write-services ( talk) 01:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there may be a problem with the WP:AWB tagger, which I now have turned off until the next version. Thanks for the note. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC).

My edit yesterday wasn't exactly overenthusiastic. I removed the image link because it wasn't working at the time. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it was fine. See here. The image itself has been online uninterrupted since January. TJRC ( talk) 18:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with Laurence Morton. It's a lot, but it might not be enough. I'd leave it, but it's your call. Debresser ( talk) 21:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I also left a note on Mthamann87's talkpage. A little less formal and more personal than your note. I think we should wait to see what that will do.

I admit that I got confused between Laurence and Lawrence Morton, when I wrote that there were many sources. I added a {{ Distinguish}} template to the article to prevent this in the future. Debresser ( talk) 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you made a change to the article. Was this in response to my request for feedback. This is the second time I've created this article and only want to follow wiki guidelines for ensuring its presence on wiki. Any help is much appreciated, I look forward to hearing from you. Hstisgod ( talk) 18:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what this is in reference to. I don't recollect editing Music emissions, and its revision history shows it's only been around since yesterday. TJRC ( talk) 18:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, are you the right person I can speak with about feedback. I need someone to look over this article and help me cross the t's and dot the i's, make sure its in order. Hstisgod ( talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I'm just another editor, just like you. If someone provided you with feedback, they're probably the right person to ask for clarification. Although Wikipedia has a few jerks, most editors will be helpful if asked for clarification. TJRC ( talk) 18:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for reading and answering so quickly. Have a good day Hstisgod ( talk) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(cur) (prev) 05:10, 21 July 2009 TJRC (talk | contribs) (28,889 bytes) (Undid revision 303279187 by Philkon (talk) double-counted Lovell, Young, Cernan) (undo)

Thanks, I see what you mean. My error. Phil Konstantin ( talk) 12:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've moved a discussion related to Yuja Wang to Talk:Yuja Wang#Publicist edits. Please continue the discussion there. TJRC ( talk) 14:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tekserve. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tekserve. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi TJRC/Archive3,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{ anchors}} in Wikipedia ( example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{ User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman  ^talk/ _WP:Hornbook 19:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How can you possibly defend allowing someone to delete an article by innapropriately changing it to a redirect, and then nominating that redirect for deletion? [2] The nominator is the one who created the situation where it was a redirect that should be deleted. His redirect should have been reverted, and the article should ahve gone to AfD. -- AvatarMN ( talk) 07:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello TJRC, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Lubna al-Hussein has been removed. It was removed by Hammersoft with the following edit summary '(Prod contested)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Hammersoft before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 00:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages)

On this page Richard_Hatch_(Survivor_contestant) You undid my edit about Richard Hatch smuggling in matches. I edited under my IP. But im using my account to contact you. I am in the process of watching all the seasons of survivor and it just so happens I am watching all-stars. In the second episode, all 3 tribes got fire when they opted to get flint instead of blankets when one tribe won. Prior to this there was no fire from any tribe, nor a mention of it. In fact, Richard helped make the fire with the flint and was annoyed he couldnt get it started right away. Yes, the information is 'souced' But the inquirer is not a valid source in my opinion. To the best of my knowledge, they make up news mixed in with truth. Second, no survivor contestent is strip searched. Ever.

So the debate begins. I believe that the source is false. I wanted to discuss this with you first before taking it to a public discussion.

THanks! Ivtv ( talk) 23:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this is an issue about a particular article, it's best to bring it up on the article's talk page. . TJRC ( talk) 23:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty. Thanks for the response Ivtv ( talk) 23:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Only so you know, the whole clause is indeed restrictive (by its construction it can mean no other kidnapping). Cheers, Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you could read it that way. If that's true, it should be introduced by a comma prior to the "which." TJRC ( talk) 14:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No comma needed but... I think we can disagree on this with no worries :D Gwen Gale ( talk) 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I shall consult my Fowler's when I am in the office later today, if for no other reason than to educate myself if I'm wrong. But I agree, this is not a big thing. TJRC ( talk) 15:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

See Discussion page. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 19:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the text you deleted from the Apollo 17 to the Talk:Apollo 17 and included all the information from the novel regarding the mission from page 48 of the novel. Feel free to comment there. Graham1973 ( talk) 23:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded. TJRC ( talk) 00:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply here since I'm not "fixing" a redirect. I was the one who added the link in the first place. [3] That would make you the fixer. Entomologist has existed for five years and has never been expanded beyond its initial creation as a redirect, despite there being 1,195 links to it. This indicates that the likelihood of it ever being created as a separate article to Entomology is virtually nil, which is why linking to it is pointless. It makes far more sense to pipe the link. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 08:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of who is making an edit, the heart of that policy is that an existing redirect is, absent any of the exceptions, which do not apply here, using the redirect rather than a pipe is preferable, if for no reason other than it make editing cleaner. TJRC ( talk) 15:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

An existing redirect didn't exist until you turned a piped link into a redirect. I don't see how the redirect can make editing cleaner and the fact still remains that there is nothing gained from converting the piped link to a redirect in this case. It misleads editors into believe there is useful content at the redirect page. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The redirect has existed in its present from for over five years. See [4]. I don't know what you mean when you say "It misleads editors into believe there is useful content at the redirect page." It's just like any other redirect. It does not take a reader or editor to the redirect page itself, it takes it to the redirect target, exactly as a piped link does, but without "Introducing unnecessary invisible text [that] makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.". TJRC ( talk) 18:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that the reirect has existed for five years. [5] That's why I piped it to Entomology. What I meant by "useful content" was content other than simply a redirect, for example something about entomology. I'm aware of what WP:NOTBROKEN says, but what does it mean by "invisible text [that] makes the article more difficult to read in page source form"? How is [[Entomology|entomologist]] more difficult to read than [[entomologist]]? If this is something should be done in all cases, why do we bother with piping at all? -- AussieLegend ( talk) 18:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In "invisible text [that] makes the article more difficult to read in page source form", "invisible text" refers to the "Entomology|" in "[[Entomology|entomologist]]". "Page source form" refers to when you have it open for editing; that's "source", as opposed to the rendered page you see when viewingthe article.

[[Entomology|entomologist]] is more difficult to read than [[entomologist]] because it disrupts the reading flow. The latter is cleaner. That's the whole point of that porion of the guideline.

"If this is something should be done in all cases...." No, it's not done in all cases, but it is done when there's already a serviceable redirect, as in this case.

"....why do we bother with piping at all?" Piping and the reasons for it are described at WP:PIPELINK. Two reasons given are "the wording of the exact link title does not fit in context" and "there are multiple meanings of the word". I'm not claiming those are the only possible reasons, but certainly neither is present here. "Entomologist" is an exact link that fits in context and there are not multiple meanings of the word.

WP:PIPELINK also makes clear ("When not to use") that "It is not necessary to pipe links simply to avoid redirects," which is what you propose to do. TJRC ( talk) 19:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved the content 69.116.236.229 added to Intellectual property in Iran Scientus ( talk) 22:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Bring it up on the talk page and discuss it first. The article has evolved into an article on intellectual property in Iran, as a whole. Do not move the page without consensus. Read up on WP:OWN. Your edit summaries seem to indicate that you have some sort of arbitration rights on the IP-related articles you edit, some of which appear to be biased to multiple editors, including me. Bottom line: this is not an uncontroversial page move, and you need to get consensus. TJRC ( talk) 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

After reading the deletion thread for the balloon boy, I've come to the conclusion that you're really grumpy and uptight. Someone needs to hug you. Tilde tilde tilde tilde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.225.155 ( talk) 02:22, October 16, 2009

Retain the article on Keith Bardwell. People rely on Wikipedia for information. Government officials should not be in charge of approving or disapproving what people choose to do within the law, and Wikipedia editors should not be in charge of denying information to people who are seeking it. The Deletion Policy is well thought out and articulated. Yesterday it might have applied to this situation. Today it doesn't. Your concern has been mooted by a market issue, demand. I appreciate your conscientious attitude and consider that your apprehensions have been addressed. Rammer ( talk) 22:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Bardwell; a comment on my talk page will not be seen. TJRC ( talk) 22:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Roger. Done. l Rammer ( talk) 23:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		You resolved the dispute between yourself and 71.174.73.50 on the deletion page for the Colorado balloon incident. For your co-efforts, I award you the Right Half of a Barnstar. Take care! -- Delta1989 ( talk) 00:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, There is a user, Josimas, who is adding personal images, using Wikipedia like a personal photo album. I think you were completely correct in reverting it twice from the Crucifixion page. I will revert it again now. Please also see the same type of action on Sayings of Jesus on the cross, and that needs a revert too. I will appreciate your reverting it. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 09:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sayings of Jesus on the cross is not one of the articles I watch. It feels a bit unseemly for me to go to it solely for the purpose of reverting on your behalf. You might just want to comment on its talk page; I'm sure other regular editors of the article will assist in keeping it clean. TJRC ( talk) 17:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not want to cross the 3R line. You had no edits on that page, so you were safe. That was my reason. But anyway, Josimas seems to be going away. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 16:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I dont understand, does the confession not confirm it was a hoax?-- TParis00ap ( talk) 23:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No; it confirms that Mrs. Heene said it's a hoax. Note that Mr. Heene continues to deny that it is a hoax, and there has been no finding that it was a hoax. There haven't even been charges yet. Limit the article to what's known, not what is asserted. TJRC ( talk) 23:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought her confession would satisfy BLP, guess not. Thanks.-- TParis00ap ( talk) 23:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please check out the most recent discussion on the Eagles talk page concerning this issue. There are times when it is appropriate to refer to the band in a singular sense (e.g. "Former Eagles member..."), and other times when members of the group themselves referred to their band in a plural sense (e.g. "When I was with the Eagles..."). In any case, it is always important to remember that the band's name is officially Eagles, and not The Eagles. The "The" can be (and always has been) included as a descriptor of the noun (the band) without being incorporated into the group's official moniker (e.g. The Beatles, The Monkees, etc.). Even though The Monkees are called "The Monkees", and not simply "Monkees", no one would say, "My favorite the Monkees song is...", but rather, "My favorite Monkees song is...". We'll get this all sorted out... Doc9871 ( talk) 10:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I did try to distinguish the senses, and retained one or two "the"s. I don't have strong feelings on the subject, so I won't object if you revert me in whole or in part. TJRC ( talk) 15:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, stop! That note at the top about deleting red links reflects the views of one user more than two years ago and runs counter to discussion of other users. Before you kill more names, please discuss and give others a chance to have a say. Thanks. Drhoehl ( talk) 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I hear you; I opened a discussion on the talk page: Talk:List of classical pianists#Pianists without articles. TJRC ( talk) 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you edits to the Benoit page. I too have been having issues with posters attempting to claim Benoit is the "alleged" murderer or removing information pertaining to the murder in general. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, please see the Chris Benoit talk page. Thanks, and keep up the good work. CraigMonroe ( talk) 18:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi TJRC, (I think we need to avoid an edit war here, so I will explain my self) for the article GIMP you have changed the spacing between a comma and a citation, please note that the article already has an established style for this (I have spent a long time making this consistent). There are several recommendations for style over wikipedia, some are guidelines and others are just accepted on the basis of an argument being valid, or well argued. While I don't personally care either how an article is formatted, I think it should be consistent, personally I just defaulted to recommendations in the manual of style (this is taken off one of the many accepted styles for citations called MHRA style). If you believe that the semantic difference in style is important, please argue on the discussion page and I will help you change over all citations to be consistent with that style. -- Gnepets ( talk) 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

damn it, I just checked the article and someone changed them all over at some point anyhow, how rude. I will check the MoS later to see what exactly the guidelines are, but I suspect I will just leave it alone. -- Gnepets ( talk) 22:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I just checked, it was on the basis of established style. I assumed the style that was previously used was in tact as it is not I apologise. -- Gnepets ( talk)

TJRC: I work for the studio of Mr. Avenaim. Thank you for reverting the Amber Tamblyn photo credit, it made me look deeper into this issue. As these images are his living, he has made a personal choice to upload a very few selected images to the Commons to help shed his famous subjects in a more flattering light. And to aid in the development of the Wikipedia community. Since doing so, users like AOL, People magazine, and the the wealth of other dot com sites, now use many of his images for free as they are part of the Wikimedia Commons. These are images they would normally have to purchase from him or his syndication agency Corbis, and even when purchased they would give him a photo credit. When he does a shoot, he is credited, if he wrote an article, he would have a byline. For some reason Wikipedian User:SarekOfVulcan has (what I feel is arbitrary) decided to go and remove his photo credit on these photographs while he sites this closed discussion here. This Wikipedian left a very polite comment regarding this on Mr Avenaim's Talk page which just doesn't cut it.

Sir, User:SarekOfVulcan I mean no disrespect to you. However, if you have access to these celebrities and are willing to upload formal sessions of them to the commons sacrificing income, than you are certainly a philanthropist. However to Mr Avenaim, this is unacceptable for his contributions. As discussed in the article you directed Noam Cohen of the New York Times even wrote an article on the subject in the New York Times

Noted contributors should at the very least have their works credited on Wikipedia. And I respectfully ask that these deleted credits be reverted back to show the author/contributor, that sir, is the right thing to do. Ryan Hackett, studio manager for Jerry Avenaim and I suppose the signature for this (as instructed) would go here Avenaim ( talk) 05:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, dropping by to express agreement. The Manual of Style page Wikipedia:Captions#Tips_for_describing_pictures doesn't deprecate photographer credit in credits when the photographer is notable. It's good practice to include that information under these circumstances. A few examples of photographer and artist credit in our featured pictures:

• 
  Used at Little Norway, Wisconsin with photographer Arthur Rothstein named in the caption.
• 
  Used at figurative art with artist Kenyon Cox named in the caption.
• 
  Used at " The Raven" with artist Édouard Manet named in the caption.
• 
  Used at White House with architect Benjamin Henry Latrobe named in the caption.

Left a similar message for SarekOfVulcan last night. If neither of you object I'll be restoring the Jerry Avenaim caption credit soon. Mr. Avenaim is arguably more notable than Arthur Rothstein, and comparable to a George Hurrell. As a site we're quite fortunate that someone of this standing has placed work under copyleft license. Durova ³⁴⁹ 16:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection. In the past, some Infobox documentation included recommending including photographer credits; for example, until March 2008, the instructions for template:Infobox writer/doc read "Try to include date of photo and the photographer." However that was later deleted, with no discussion. I personally feel that, just as we would not wholesale lift text for an article without attribution, even is it was freely licensed or public domain, so that such a taking would be legal, we should not do that for photos, either. TJRC ( talk) 19:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello TJRC, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of F.I.R.-Fairyland in Reality (F.I.R. album) - a page you tagged - because: Not a recently created redirect - consider WP:RfD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW ( Talk) 20:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed the "recently created" requirement. TJRC ( talk) 20:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused you any extra trouble. I'm not very experienced with hatnotes and was trying to ensure that a bunch of disambiguation pages that had been tagged for speedy deletion were not going to screw things up when I deleted them. I gather that the idea is that Tim Howard should have a hatnote leading to Tim Howard (attorney) but not the other way around, which makes sense since it's unlikely that anyone looking for Tim Howard would start at Tim Howard (attorney) by accident. Sorry I didn't think this through more carefully; I'll have a look at the others I did today and change them to meet that criterion should they require it. If I have misinterpreted why you reverted my change, please let me know. Accounting4Taste: talk 23:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's no trouble at all, don't sweat it. You've got the idea exactly correct: no one would ever wind up at Tim Howard (attorney) while loking for a soccer player; hence no need for the hatnote. And, for what it's worth, your edit was an improvement. Previously, the hatnote had a link to a non-existent disambiguation page; at least with your edit, it went somewhere. I just happened to notice your edit, and realized that no hatnote was needed at all, hence my change. Cheers. TJRC ( talk) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Mussorgsky, Pictures at an Exhibition (Touschmaloff orchestration), page 1.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Mussorgsky, Pictures at an Exhibition (Touschmaloff orchestration), page 1.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Mussorgsky, Pictures at an Exhibition (Touschmaloff orchestration), page 1.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 10:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to point out that since the convention is to not move track listing info into the artist article, or the album cover photo, there would be little to move if the Elegy (Julian Lloyd Webber album) article were merged rather than kept.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am creating this notice to invite all interested parties to vote on the proposal to merge Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton) to a new article at Ondine (ballet). You can read the discussion and add your vote to the poll at:

• Discussion
• Poll

Look forward to seeing you there to help resolve this situation, thanks! Crazy-dancing ( talk) 11:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your pointers on the Ondine poster. I realised my mistake as soon as I did it, hence why I uploaded under a new file name straight away and put an orphan tag on the other one. The only reason I did it, is because even though the poster image I uploaded was from an older poster, it was a complete poster whereas that other one was just a photograph from the poster without the text or other poster elements. Thanks for you help! Crazy-dancing ( talk) 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Robertgreer#Flore et Zéphire. — Robert Greer ( talk) 21:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the link to that article. It has to be said, I would never in a million years have imagined Jeremy Clarkson agreeing to go to a ballet, let alone recognising a phrase of music, so it makes for interesting reading. I definitely agree with his thoughts on how in the field of artistic endeavour, we've pretty much done everything we can do, or so far as human decency and the law allows anyway. I think this is what has given rise to the modern day obsession with all things 'vintage'. Vintage meaning the 'artists' can't come up with any new ideas so are recycling the old ones and selling them to us in a redesigned package. - Anyway, have no fear, I have no intention of doing any more edits to Ondine (ballet), I think I've done my fair share and we have an article that is fair and evenly balanced between music and ballet, it just needs a bit of refining. I'm now on to my next project anyway, making sure that dancers past and present from the Royal Ballet, BRB, English National and NBT are all properly categorised and easy to find, and making new ones for the many famous Brit dancers that as yet, aren't listed on Wikipedia. So thanks again for the article, it's nice to know someone out there hasn't judged me too negatively and can see the lighter side of my nature. Cheerio Crazy-dancing ( talk) 23:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not continue to re-add non-free material that does not pass WP:NFCC. It is very clear that a poor quality screencap of an anime figure on a cross is not necessary to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject. The subject is crucifixion, not anime representations of it. No-one needs an image to understand that crucifixion is depicted in anime. As the person re-adding non-free material, it is incumbent upon you to explain how it passes all criteria of WP:NFCC - you have not done that. Black Kite 10:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi TJRC, I hope that you don't feel discouraged about the last couple of days. I, for one, am not going anywhere. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tryptofish. I expect to weigh in, but quite frankly, I was enjoying my long Thanksgivig weekend and was not willing to wade too deeply into a WikiDrama with anonymous trolls. I'm currently kind of busy in Real Life to get into it much, but will hopefully comment later this week when I have time. TJRC ( talk) 00:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and no hurry. I think it increasingly makes sense to take it slow and wait for the drama to quiet down and cooler heads to prevail. (Now if I would only take my own advice...). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

Please notice this edit. A lower-case initial for that word is required by Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Generally the first letter of a section heading is capital, and the rest are lower case except when there's a reason to capitalized them, such as a person's name. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine; 'twas a typo. Thank you for fixing it. TJRC ( talk) 00:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OR and UE, in the context of images for deletion, stand for Orphaned, which the image is, and Unencyclopedic, which I also believe the image is, as noted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Yzak Jule ( talk)

Thank you. TJRC ( talk) 00:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know what your advice would be. Please take a look at User talk:Explicit#File:Sailor Mercury.jpg, and let me know what you think would be best to do next. Among the possibilities would be to take it to WP:Deletion review, or to use, instead, the images from FullMetal Alchemist#Manga. At this point, I'm asking you, Gary, and Elen. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a wrongful deletion. WP:NFCC#8 was expressly addressed on the FILE: page itself. For that matter I don't see the issue raised in the discussion, as User talk:Explicit claims. It's really wrong to close out a discussion and delete on a basis not raised in the deletion discussion, and without reviewing the page itself being deleted.

But this deck is stacked against us. This discussion in particular has turned me off from Wikipedia. I had a couple new articles planned (on various aspects of intellectual property and U.S. constitutional law, for example), and some wonderful references for the lack of constitutional or statutory basis for the David Rice Atchison "President for a Day" claim, for example, but I'm shelving them. Contributing to Wikipedia is becoming more and more a case of casting pearls before swine.

It isn't just this article. For example, an admin recently went through and blanked out and redirected all the articles on albums from Korean superstar singer Lee Soo Young. Hey, he's not Korean, so he never heard of her, so why not? I don't have too much of a problem with this, per se, but he didn't even bother to merge the content to the redirection target; so that information is just gone.

Editing Wikipedia is getting to be a waste of time. TJRC ( talk) 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I read that, and I feel awful about it. I'm getting differing feedback from different editors I'm asking, so I'm going to hold back on taking any action until I can get it sorted out. But I'm potentially open to going to deletion review, and I have no problem with holding admins accountable for their decisions, although I actually believe that this one was entirely good-faith. There's no reason a priori to think other admins would necessarily approach the decision the same way. As I see things, I've been standing my ground against the SA people who came here, and I've eventually gotten everything I was pushing for except this image. But what I think is more important than any of that, is that you are a good editor, and I feel terrible that you would feel turned off from editing here. Is there anything I can do to be helpful to you? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say hi, and to ask how things are going, and if there's anything I can do to be helpful. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.