TJRC

@AngusWOOF:, is the issue for you that there are portions of the article that are not sourced (which could be cured by deleting those statements); or do you think it does not meet notability standards? It now has several sources, only one of which (Billboard) is to the song rather than the album, and appears to meet WP:NALBUM criterion #1.

This is not actually not my article, I just edited it in the spirit of WP:RESCUE to cure the deficiencies that moved it to draft space; but if there are specific things you can point to to get it in shape for publication I'll do it; otherwise will let it drop. TJRC (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

TJRC, it doesn't seem to meet notability standards for albums, but perhaps a more thorough critical reception section with GNG reviews might show otherwise. It hasn't charted, so it would probably be a redirect to the artist. The "Gold" song already has its own article. There's no charting in the most common places (Billboard, ARIA, Official Charts) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

TJRC, it looks like it was gold certified in Music Canada, so if you can add that to the article and indicate that in the lead, that should help notability. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Done. By the way, I wasn't referring to the charting (I'd already checked and seen that it hadn't charted at least on Billboard), which is WP:NALBUM criterion #2; I was referring to criterion #1, subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works. TJRC (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Didn't know. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. There are too many things to learn and too much content to get through regarding WP:MOS it can be overwhelming. This is especially true for someone like myself with a learning disability in reading comprehension. I appreciate your patience and fairness regarding my attempted good faith edits. Kimdorris (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kimdorris: Don't give it another thought. I've been editing here for more than a decade and still find new aspects now and then. And that's such a little one, too. Enjoy your editing! TJRC (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to quibble with your reversion/correction of me a bit. As it now stands, the sentence implies that each orbit was 48 minutes long and he was out of radio contact for the entirety of that time:

"During the 48 minutes of each orbit, he was out of radio contact with Earth; the feeling he reported was not loneliness, but rather 'awareness, anticipation, satisfaction, confidence, almost exultation'."

That's not correct. He was only out of contact during a specific part of the orbit - while he was on the opposite side of the Moon from Earth. It's that specific period of time the second part is referring to, which is why I read it as a dependent clause followed by an independent one (and therefore think the semicolon is inappropriate). Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 21:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I just found the corresponding sentence in the Apollo 11 article, which shows what I mean (and is a bit more fleshed out):

"In the 48 minutes of each orbit when he was out of radio contact with the Earth while Columbia passed round the far side of the Moon, the feeling he reported was not fear or loneliness, but rather 'awareness, anticipation, satisfaction, confidence, almost exultation'." Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 22:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good quibble, and your subsequent edit makes it even better. TJRC (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Embarcadero Technologies, you may be blocked from editing. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am not vandalizing; I restored a tag that you have four times removed, once after being warned, in clear violation of WP:3RR. TJRC (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

3RR does not apply to vandalism. You are adding a tag and violating the instructions associated with that tag (see talk page at Embarcadero Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). Stop disrupting Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

WP:VANDNOT. TJRC (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

And which one do you think excuses repeatedly adding a tag that requires disclosing what you think needs attention? Especially as you appear to have no actual knowledge of what the issue actually is... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I'm accused of vandalism? This is the 10th time I'm been called that, even on a Wiki Fandom account! ArtemisBeast (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have no knowledge of you being accused of vandalism; nor of any Wiki Fandom accounts. If you're referring to the comment left on your user page, the issue is that you are putting material in articles without any support from any reliable source. You probably mean well (so it's not vandalism), but it's still not a useful edit. TJRC (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello TJRC. Thank you for your message. I indeed must learn to make citations. I thought that linking to another Wikipedia page was sufficient citation. I also don't know HTML well enough to edit in that. What happened to the Visual Editor?72.223.22.7 (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

You don't have to do any HTML. The simplest (although not preferred way), particularly if it's a news article online on the Internet, is to at least include the URL to the page between the tags <ref> and </ref>. It's better to use the various {{cite}} templates, but that's just cosmetics. If you at least include the URL, someone else will likely come along and clean it up, and you've at least provided a basis to verify the information you added. Just make sure it's a reliable source like a legitimate news site; most of what's on the web is not (ironically, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, because anyone can edit it).

Is the visual editor no longer available? I didn't like it and never used it so I don't have any info on it. TJRC (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, TJRC. I was working through my watchlist just now and saw this edit of yours, where your edit summary used a shortcut I didn't remember ever seeing before, WP:TWWPK. So I clicked and laughed out loud. I truly haven't ever seen that essay, but it's great, and I'll probably (have occasion to) use the abbreviation myself sometime. Thanks for the laugh, and happy editing! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's pretty much the same way I discovered it! TJRC (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, your PROD nomination Walter Hilgers had been removed by a third editor who forgot to inform you so do I, you may consider taking it to AfD. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I saw that. I put a comment on the article's talk page, inviting him to explain before taking it to AFD; so far no response. But thanks for the nudge, I'll specifically point it out on his talk page. TJRC (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove my info on HAL 9000? Helenmomike (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your AfD just now and I thought you'd be interested in seeing a message I left for the user you cited, as I have noticed an issue with him being long standing, and intend to plug that hole since I suspect he won't change. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 01:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it seems to be a thing with him. I'm not sure what his problem is, but it sounds like he disagrees with WP:PROD in principle; or maybe (which is essentially the same thing) seems to think no article could possibly meet the requirements of PROD. Shrug. I meant to do the AFD a while ago. I still had his talk page on my watchlist from having tried to engage him in April, and your note there reminded me. (Dare I say it prodded me?) TJRC (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Please see: "Your edit on Franz Strasser was reverted: Latest revision as of 18:48, 4 July 2021 (edit) (undo) (thanked) Eric (talk | contribs)" (Reverting edit(s) by Arrivisto (talk) to rev. 1013651220 by Eric: Reverting good-faith edit; photo is not of Strasser, see commons:File_talk:Karl_Morgenschweis_prays_for_condemned_prisoner.jpg (RW 16.1)) Tags: Undo RedWarn

It seems it ISN't Strasser! Perhaps my edit on Hanging was justified? Cheers. Arrivisto (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, indeed. I've revised accordingly, much closer to what you had. Thanks! TJRC (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

TJRC,

First, thank you for sending your message. The edit I made to Richard Berman's notable cases page was my attempt to link the case Gordon v. Softech International, Inc. to another article page, Docusearch. Docusearch is a subsidiary of Arcanum Investigations, Inc, which this case refers to.

If done incorrectly, please advise how to do so appropriately. ThanksWiki Arcanum (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

You'll need to find a valid reliable source that supports what you added -- namely that Docusearch was a defendant named in that suit -- and provide a reference to that source.

Note that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. TJRC (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

TJRC, Thanks for you most recent comments on my Talk page. I misinterpreted your original comment because I was merely trying to "link" Richard Berman's notible case to the Docusearch article page. I didn't realize that I needed to cite that Docusearch was associated with it's parent company Arcanum Investigations. I thought this was apparent from the Docusearch article page. Anyway, here's a citation stating that Docusearch (aka docusearch.com) is a subsidiary of Arcanum. It is located in the 8th paragraph of an article on JDSupra website ( https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/second-circuit-rejects-strict-liability-00282/ ). Using this citation, can you please show me how to successfully link the Berman notible case to the Docusearch article page? Once I see it I can link other Wiki articles to the Docusearch article and it won't be an "orphan" page. Again, thank you for your assistance. Wiki Arcanum (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not unless Docusearch was a party to the case, no.

I know you don't want the page you created to be an orphan, but you don't edit content on other article solely for the reason of having a link back to your page if it is not an improvement to the article; and certainly you don't do it in a case like this where you can't show that Docusearch was a party to the case and have no reference saying that it was. TJRC (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.Reply

To clarify: I am not affiliated by the site I added and my goal was not to advertise. The previously added link to another service led me to wrongly believe that links to example services were justified here and I wanted to add another provider that I often use. Removing both links is perfectly fine, thank you for taking care of that. --David-ri93 (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I tried to use {{Notif}} in my own user talk page towards you but it seems to not work. I don't know why. I am not familiar with Wiki subtleties. I was asking you to explain me the difference between the previous plot hole report and mine ? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papatamus59 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, no problem; I replied on your talk page. (I always temporarily watch-list talk paged of editors where I've left comments so I can see if they are looking for a reply.) TJRC (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

The incessant yammering about "reliable sources" gets old. It seems as if I can't say "Paris is the capital of France" without a "reliable source." Even so, friends/operators of Wikipedia can freely sow this and that, altogether wherever, without the merest reference. The double standard is tiresome and reminds one of the practices of a witless Democrat who spends his life baselessly slamming Trump while gleefully ignoring Biden's rapidly advancing senility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4B00:C200:0:0:0:2A22 (talk) 19:03, July 23, 2021 (UTC)

"Paris is the capital of France" clearly falls within WP:BLUE. Your reverted edits do not.

And I don't know what you're gong on about with the Trump and Biden thing. Your reverted unsourced edits to torture related articles have nothing to do with either. TJRC (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's an IP hopper, working at it for days. 213 remaining. Thinking of writing a script, likely they will keep at it. -- GreenC 22:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

You know, apart from the malformed wikilink, and the lack of sourcing (I'm guessing what they add is true, just not sourced), they aren't bad edits. TJRC (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's the overt placement in the lead section, often as its own paragraph. And this is all they do on Wikipedia, and hide tracks with rolling IPs. Chances of a paid editor or COI are high. If they were adding it to awards sections where it didn't exist before, that should stay. -- GreenC 00:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ah; the ones I'd come across on my watchlist (Thomas P. Stafford, Kathryn D. Sullivan) didn't go to the lede.

There was a guy who did something like this a few years ago, affiliated with an aviation museum, adding boilerplate text that his museum had an exhibit on [subject]; with no reference other than to the home page for the museum, which had nothing about the subject in question. TJRC (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Could you please review my addition to the Talk:Hel (being) page? I really don't think I can get a consensus on my requested additions because the page simply does not have much traffic, but overall I believe I make some good points in my post to the talk page on why new requested section should be added. MrGoldenfold007 (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also I would like to bring to your attention that the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution page states the following:

"When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page."

My information is neither biased, inaccurate, or unsourced. I linked my information to Age of Mythology's manual via Archive.org and was simply stating facts, not opinion whatsoever. You also simply keep deleting my submissions, rather than providing simply feedback or advice regarding revision. I would be happy to revise any problematic areas of my edits, but if you cannot provide any advice regarding that than I will put my edits back up. Keep in mind the first time you questioned my sources I did fixed them so it is pretty clear I am willing to cooperate. MrGoldenfold007 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was a little reluctant to reply there right away, since I'm obviously in opposition to it, and I thought it would be better to let others chime in than to dominate; my edit summaries made my position clear. But since you pinged me I replied there. I don't intend to get into a long discussion (I'm mindful of WP:BLUDGEON), but I set out my position.

My issue is not that it's biased, that it is inaccurate, or that it is unsourced. It is that it is trivial and irrelevant to the subject of the article.

If you're concerned about the lack of traffic, you can always post a (neutral) message on a pertinent Wikiproject talk page asking for input. In this case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology/Norse mythology work group is probably the best choice. TJRC (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I placed a neutral call for input on the parent project: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology#Hel (being) : proposed addition of "In popular culture" section. With any luck, that will help stimulate some discussion. TJRC (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Consensus was reached on the Talk:Hel (being) page regarding the inclusion of the section in question and I have gone ahead and made the changes. MrGoldenfold007 (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Great, that's all I ever asked for. You have a little bit of WP:REFSPAM in there; please clean that up. TJRC (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

TJRC, thanks for the kind note on the revert. I've made another attempt at that same sentence and avoided the gerund problem entirely. I think that what I used reads more smoothly than either previous option, and I also noticed (which I'd missed before) that the part of the sentence before that point was pretty poorly written, so I edited that portion, also. As I wrote in my comment, it can probably be further improved by restructuring or by breaking it up into multiple sentences. Holy (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me! TJRC (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Newimpartial (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

What possible reason could you have for violating MOS:GENDERID (and pre-empting the Talk page discussion) in this edit? The article includes a reliably-sourced announcement of nonbinary identity, and toy have reinstated four categories that clearly violate MOS:GENDERID and BLP policies through misgendering, as well as reinstating gendered pronouns for no policy-compliant reason? If you are unwilling to revert yourself, I will have to take the issue to an appropriate noticeboad. Newimpartial (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Newimpartial (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your edit summary said " but if you do, please do so with correct grammar". As a long-time wikieditor, you should have known it is unbecoming to chastise non-native speakers for their grammar. I an very sorry and blushing that I do not feel articles as you do, but sometimes I just cannot help it. And the very least you could have explained what mistake I had made. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. First, if you had cited a source, I would have simply corrected the grammar. The real problem with your edit was not the grammar, but the lack of a source for the edit you were proposing. The grammar comment was in anticipation that you may have had a source and would be re-adding it with the source, and was intended as just a heads-up to that. My comment was a little awkward only because of the space limitations of the edit summary, and was not intended to be harsh, but I see it came off that way, so I apologize for that.

I must admit that I probably wasn't too concerned with your feelings, given that your own edit summary was "Dont mess with things you dont know," which was at least as insulting as asking you to use correct grammar.

The grammar error was that, in your original edit, you didn't include "the". If the edit was otherwise supported by sources, I would have just added it.

Your current edit avoided that, so there's no need to correct that. I will, however, go in and revise your spelling to American English, since the subject of the article has close ties to the US (I would keep the British English if it were a quote.) TJRC (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about "dont mess with". Most of my conversational English comes from the movies where I rarely see ladies and gentlemen lately. I will try and watch my tongue in the future. Since we are spilling our hearts here, let me say that my impolite response was caused by your terse (I wanted to write "curt", but thought better to consult Wiktionary :-) edit summary. I saw a sloppy phrasing and fixed it. Since you are a lawyer, you should understand that the difference is rather significant. Sadly, while the phrasing "would criminalize accusing Poles of..." is de jure an incorrect interpretation, not surprisingly, there have already been attempts by Polish conservatives to do exactly the thing: to sue for "accusing Poles". So the outcry about the law was "prescient". Lembit Staan (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fine, but please be mindful of WP:OR and editing the article without a source that includes your reason for believing it an error; particularly when your edit is contrary to the source being cited. TJRC (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

User:TJRC Hi, thank you for the edit on the CDC page, it reads much better. I intended to return to fix the plodding sentence, I got tired while I was doing it. Thanks again! Missbellanash (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Did you mean to do this? Looks like it's all cleared up now, just checking that I'm not missing something. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Girth Summit, I certainly did not! Looks like I misread the diffs and actually reinstated the spam/vandalism in error. My apologies and thanks for bringing it to my attention. TJRC (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

No worries - thought that must have been the case, happens to all of us. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 19:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors. an incorrect warning is considered harassing, next time you harass me you will be directly reported Tehonk (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your warning was for altering the name of an individual in a BLP article here with no sourcing whatsoever. I would have given you a level-1 warning but for the fact that you have already received multiple warnings for disruptive editing, which you have concealed from your talk page, and been blocked at least once for it. Please stop. TJRC (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I made an edit (it was not verifiable with the present source in the first place), you reverted it. End of story. Your nonsense warning is then harassment. You can't give me any warning at all at that point. I did not conceal anything, I don't have to keep things on my talk page. You got your only and last warning. Tehonk (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just for posterity:

• warnings: [1], [2], [3]
• deletions of warnings and other evidence of misbehavior: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]
• block for disruptive editing: [12], [13]

I'm not losing any sleep over not assuming this particular editor's good faith given their track record. TJRC (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have a right to empty my talk page, you can't call that "misbehavior" like this. And you have more warnings than mine, do you want me to list them for posterity? With 2 of 3 of these people we got along in the end. Stop with your harassment and stay away. I won't warn you again. Tehonk (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how else to ask for sources. The article has WP:NPOV problems, insinuating that Usenet is infested with child porn. In reality, Usenet is not a friendly medium for child porn. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

My apologies, as I saw an alert on reverted content on a high-traffic article and accidentally reverted your correct restoration of the content, thinking I was doing the same restore you already did yourself. I've undone my own edit and put it back the way you had it. Thanks for beating me to it...! Forensic Kidology (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

No problem, we've all done that at one time or another. In fact (see Eh?, above) I just did it myself last month! TJRC (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why using other WIKIPEDIA articles that are sourced and vetted (as in that for THE ENTERTAINERS), in describing Newhart's co-hosting of this 1964-65 series, but in his case only till the end of 1964, are being considered insufficient. I can go back to TOTAL TELEVISION and the Marsh volume and redundantly cite those pages, and will do so in the future, if that is what's deemed necessary (note also the captioned photograph in THE ENTERTAINERS's post, which shows Newhart and Burnett holding guitars while standing around a photo of Valente, as the initial three hosts of the series). TM 96.248.75.57 (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)^[1]Reply

You don't provide any source at all; and you cannot use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. TJRC (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  I noticed that a message you recently left to Priyapk1995 may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. The editor hasn't made an edit since I and then you left a warning on their page. A second warning before they may have even read the first is rather harsh. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this. You're right, and I particularly did not consider the timing issue. I'll ease up. TJRC (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this revert. You made Wikipedia better !!!! Good job !! You must be proud of yourself !! 24.6.179.65 (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry! I have not edited for some time, and the rules have changed. I attempted to add data that was originally on this article. Yes, the article is about me. What constitutes a "reliable source"? I noted that I received a Fulbright Scholarship, and I am even now looking at the diploma on my wall. How can I link that to Wikipedia? In what format? I also re-added that I was an actor with the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, I included a link to the Wikipedia article, "Oregon Shakespeare Festival Production History." I have been a professor for over 35 years, and yet do not quite understand what Wikipedia wants as a "reliable source." Can you help me? MacDUFFY (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Professor Fowler. A good general description of what constitutes a reliable source can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources (that was linked in the note I left you). Basically, it would encompass any source that 1) is basically deemed reliable (news coverage, books by an expert in the field for which it's being cited, etc.); 2) published; and 3) independent of the subject being written about. There's some slack about that last point: if noncontroversial information about a subject is published by a source not independent of the subject, that's generally allowable as well. (For example, if you have an academic biography on a university website, even though that is not independent of you, it could still be cited for things like the institutions you attended; but it could not be used, for example, to support a claim of special expertise, where we could not expect your self-penned biography to be free of bias.)

The use of reliable sources accomplishes three things: first it ensures (at least to the extent that the cited source is accurate) accuracy in the article. Second, it makes for verifiability: since the source is published, any one can go and check it and verify the citation. With enough eyes on an article this usually (it's not by any means fool-proof) at least slows down the addition of misinformation to an article.

A third benefit of this is not often discussed: and that is that Wikipedia itself is only a tertiary source; certainly not a primary one. Any information you see in a Wikipedia article ought to have been published somewhere else first. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, for publishing information for the first time. So it's a good rule of thumb that, if an editor cannot come up with any publication anywhere that has made some statement, that statement has no business being in the Wikipedia article. This is true even where the editor is either the subject of the article, or has particular expertise about the subject of the article. Wikipedia, by its nature, digests and summarizes information already published elsewhere.

With respect to using your diploma as a source, as you can see from the above, that would not qualify, because it's not published (in a way that others can see it); and it is not verifiable by others.

With respect to the facts of for example, your college degree, or your Fullbright scholarship: certainly those can be added if it has previously been reported elsewhere and the editor adding it can cite to those publications. But if it has not been reported elsewhere, Wikipedia is not the place to document it for the first time.

I hope this helps. If you want to discuss further, just comment below here. TJRC (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is your purpose in reverting to abbreviations for the first name or word of a party a wish to comply with the Bluebook? If so, then please refer to a portion of rule 10.2 below:

10.2 Case Names

* * * Always retain in full the first word in each party’s name (including a relator) except as provided below.

You can refer to the rest of the rule in your Bluebook. Yes, there are some exceptions described in the rest of 10.2 (which I agree should be followed), but in general that is why I eliminated abbreviations for the initial word in many cases.

You are quite right to get rid of the periods in, for example, N.L.R.B., so thank you for that. It shows the perils of trying to pull the Bluebook rules from memory instead of from its text.

I do object to removing quotation marks and replacing them with prime marks. Why bother to revert? Are they not both acceptable?

Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

No; have a look at MOS:QUOTEMARKS; use straight-quotes (what you call "prime marks"). if you disagree, suggest an edit to the MOS and if you get a consensus to change Wikipedia style, then go ahead and implement that. TJRC (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

It’s not a hill I’m going to die on. Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good call. TJRC (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. I understand. The roles I played with the Oregon Shakespeare Festival may be included in your article "Oregon Shakespeare Festival Production History." If not, I can probably find them on the Festival's own published site. I believe the academic information (my scholarships, my degrees, &c.) were published in our old university catalogs, although since my emeritus retirement 8 years ago I doubt they are still accessible. I will have to find out. I am a bit under the weather at th moment, but will get back on it as soon as I can. Thanks again. ~ Kf MacDUFFY (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Unfortunately, you can't use one Wikipedia article as a source for another. Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source; after all, it's edited by a lot of random people like you and me!

That being said, if material is in another Wikipedia article and is properly sourced there, there's certainly nothing wrong with using the same source (once you've checked it,of course), for the same information in another article.

Get well! TJRC (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your help with the referencing of the Pendergast reference. On your second edit, you write "if this has not been noted in the media, it's not worthy of inclusion". I can't say I understand what you intend to say with this. Could you explain? Thanks Schniedan (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Schniedan. Basically, sources need to be independent of the material being written about. This ensured not only unbiasedness, but also the level of notability that justifies the material being written about; and avoids articles being filled with various "sightings" made by individual editors.

In the particular case of the Preston novel, the only sources that seem to mention the DB Cooper reference are the novel itself and the book's publisher. Neither of these are independent sources.

Wikipedia is not the place where material should be published for the first time. If no published material anywhere else has made a note of it, neither should Wikipedia. If no independent third-party sources have made note of the Preston reference to DB Cooper, Wikipedia should not be reporting it. The novel and the publisher are neither third-party nor independent.

More on this can be found at WP:OR and WP:INDEPENDENT. TJRC (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Schniedan: this edit is exactly the kind of source that works. Good job. TJRC (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

TJRC, This note is a little belated but I wanted to thank you more directly for reverting my inappropriate link to the Einstein book on Dover Publications and for bringing the appropriate policy on the matter to my attention. I see now there is an "Official website" link at the end of the article and that this is in accordance with the policy. My reason for the edit, which you might have guessed, was that a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject of the book is, in my view, not helpful, neither to the reader who comes to it from the direction of the science (they are already aware, at least, of the article) or from the direction of interest in the publisher. If they are interested in the book, they would want to see that. My question then is, is there a more useful way to handle this? Do not feel obligated to answer, of course, but anything to help me become a more experienced editor is appreciated. One alternative would seem to be create on inline citation to the book with the ISBN number linked to a book search utility, rather than the publisher's entry. The expectation created by the footnote link however might be that it provides documentation for the assertion that this book is one of the house's best sellers, which it does not and remains undocumented. For now, I have left the link as it is. Again, any guidance is welcomed. Thanks. Jmcclaskey54 (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't see that a pointer to Dover's page on the book is going to be appropriate in any sense here. It's not Wikipedia's role to drive readers to sales for a vendor we cover. The book is identified, and that's as much as the article requires insofar as providing the information.

We do provide a link to Dover's web site, as we do for nearly all entities that have a web presence; but there's no reason to link to that specific book, which is a sales-only page and provides no actual information abouyt the book or its relevance to Dover comparable to any other book it carries.

I actually think the sentence should be stricken: the statement is "One of Dover's best sellers was Albert Einstein's The Principle of Relativity, which Einstein reluctantly agreed to republish despite his concerns that it was outdated." But none of that is supported by any reference in any way: not that PoR was one of Dover's best sellers; not that Einstein agreed that it could be republished despite being outdated; and nothing linking Einstein's consent to Dover's republication (this last part is only implied, but pretty strongly: that Einstein made an agreement with Dover). The statement suggests some endorsement of Dover by Einstein, and absent some support for that doesn't really belong at all. TJRC (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I agree that if the statements regarding the book, either with regard to its best seller status or its importance in the history of the company, cannot be documented, it should be stricken altogether. I too thought it had a little ring of truth though and so I spent a few days investigating. I found a site www.company-histories.com that had what appears to be a detailed and well-researched company history with a list of additional readings -- and a single source: International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 34, St. James Press, 2000. (This is an authoritative and extensive directory running to 143 volumes in print as of this year, each with hundreds of histories.) The text makes clear that indeed the founder negotiated directly with Einstein to allow publication and the passage could be read as implying that it was a significant step towards expanding that important line of business. If the purpose or stability of the website were not in question, I would be willing to keep the passage, except that, not only is this not truly the source of the text, when I tried to first publish this comment here, I was prevented from doing so because I provided a functional link and the site is on Wikipedia's global blacklist! So much for that. As for the original source, I do not have the means to access the database it resides on at the Harvard Business School nor the resources to acquire a print copy. As it stands, I don't know if it is considered appropriate to cite this source directly as I cannot confirm that the text on the website is a verbatim copy of the source material. I might have missed it but I did not see anything in the relevant Wikipedia policy that offers guidance on this point. Advice? Again, any you have is appreciated. As for now, I left everything intact. Jmcclaskey54 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

What was the blacklisted link? (if you can't include it here due to the blacklist, just leave off the http:// prefix, that should let me see it, without inserting a link.)

Of course — www.company-histories.com Jmcclaskey54 (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I went looking for the reason for its blacklisting (learning a lot through this experience). As I suspected, the site was blacklisted for persistent violation of copyright, that of Gale, the publisher of the International Directory of Company Histories. (Beyond this fact, I could not find the record of the discussion which led to it, despite following the link provided to Perennial Sources.) Paradoxically, this would appear to support as accurate the original claim in the Wikipedia article. Again, I am disinclined to cite the Directory without having seen its entry myself. You agree? I realize far too much energy is being expended on this one small statement and I doubt, if stricken, the passage would be missed, but I have come to believe that the publication of Einstein's book likely represents an event of importance in the company's history and should be retained with some modification if documented. But how long should it remain there undocumented? Is it ever an option — is it effective? — to make note of it on the article talk page, asking for a citation from someone with access to the original entry in the Directory? Jmcclaskey54 (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for putting my fixes back in to Woranuch Bhirombhakdi. I have never seen WP:BABY before, but have had many edits removed because someone was reverting something else. Appreciate you did not do that. I thought about removing the unsourced addition too, but I let it go because the entire existing article is virtually unsourced and it is tagged as needed more sources. MB 03:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem. I recognized your edits were good, and I hate to undo the good stuff. I'd initially tried to only undo the unsourced bits, but I got that "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits" error. This seemed to be the best way to approach it.

I'm probably even more sensitive to unsourced material being added when the article's already tagged. It's one thing to add probably-true-but-unsourced material to an untagged article. But once it's tagged, I feel that that should be a heads-up not to make the problem worse. In any event, the same editor re-made the edits, but with sourcing this time (although I have no basis to judge the reliability of the cited sources, I'll give the benefit of the doubt; for that matter. I could not confidently claim that I know them not to be reliable.)

On the WP:BABY shortcut: I figured someone somewhere must have written an essay on not throwing the baby out with the bathwater; and I knew that if it had been me, I would have snagged the WP:BABY shortcut, so I checked, and sure enough, there it was! It's now my second-favorite edit-summary shortcut, after correcting my own errors and citing WP:TWWPK. TJRC (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated D. B. Cooper for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --George Ho (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note on Trinity-Pawling School. I've added a source, per your request. I think it's fair to message the recent editor on newly added unsourced content, as you did. But I'd suggest some caution on removing edits that add value - a quick look at the article I linked would've shown you that the info was sourced already. The addition was a notable alumnus and that info could've gotten lost, as were some of my other (albeit minor) changes. I would recommend adding a citation needed template and a friendly message the next time. Cheers, Engineerchange (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I didn't remove anything except the unsourced addition. I kept your re-ordering in place, for example, because that was an improvement. The article already has a general tag about sourcing; it's a pervasive problem for that article. Nothing is added by peppering the article with redundant {{cn}} tags. TJRC (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I was off on that point. Disregard my message, I guess. I do appreciate you reaching out; otherwise, I would not have known that addition would've been reverted. --Engineerchange (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yup, I always assume that the editor who added it was probably right, and most likely actually had a source in hand when they added it; all we need is the source to back it up. If I let them know right away, they can re-add with the source. In the unlikely event of a bad-faith editor or someone innocently making the edit without having a reliable source for the fact, it's better off staying out anyway. TJRC (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The information comes from Chaikin's book which is referenced at the end of the paragraph. Please kindly restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomTyke (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you've confirmed that (I haven't) you can re-add it with a proper citation to the source. TJRC (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

It strikes me as perhaps somewhat inconsistent for you to cherry pick and make this deletion, while leaving in place all the other entries. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tarpon_Springs_High_School&diff=1064590604&oldid=1064579572 If you are on the page, and think it proper to do what you did, surely you can easily simply delete the entire list. Could it be that you don't wish to attract the ire of the established editors who populated that list? To avoid any appearance of impropriety, I would in such instances urge you to delete all -- or none. Especially where the relevant ref appears obviously in the target article (for this entry, though perhaps not for each of those you left alone). --2603:7000:2143:8500:4153:AC20:2ED3:E912 (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would have deleted each of those as they were added, too. But they've been on it for a while. It's a lot better to let you know of your error immediately, so you have a chance to fix it.

I have not checked who added what in that list, so I'm unaware of the various editors and whether they are established or have excess ire to dispense.

It's probably a good idea to tag the section to give folks a chance to clean it up (just as you were given a chance to add the reference), and I'll do that.

By the way: whether there are references on another article somewhere else in Wikipedia is irrelevant. Articles are not synched. TJRC (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I take that one point back; It was tagged as being unsourced, but only as of last month, so not long enough to (to me) justify starting to delete. But just because an article already has problems does not mean it is okay to make those problems worse. If the article (or in this case, section) is tagged as having the problem of not being sourced, that does not mean it's okay to add more unsourced material.

I see that you actually removed that tag, which might seem to make sense, since once you re-added a single sourced entry in was no longer completely unsourced. But since the sourcing problem still exists, you would be better to "promote" it from "unreferenced" to "references need to be inmproved" as long as it's still got problems. TJRC (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think you should not keep with this inconsistent approach. And you should look at lists throughout the project of individuals. They are replete with non-citations. Here's one. List of people from California Why don't you try your approach there. Tag it for lack of refs. And then delete all uncited entries after x months. Then, consider the reaction you get.

And do categories keep you up at night? There's a category of people from California. Guess what. No refs. None required. Are you going to start deleting those? If it's just fine with cats, on the other hand, perhaps you can relax here.

You're acting like a bad cop, though not a bad intentioned one I expect. One who gives out tickets for crossing the street against a light without a care in sight - and who only gives tickets to some people, and not others. There's no reason for you to pick on the most recent editor, and leave the entire list as it was. And of course -- you Did not tag the entry. You deleted it. Very unhelpful. Editors like you are likely to push away new editors - which the Project needs. Please reconsider, and stop you approach. Or else - delete all of those entries on the List of people from California. Stop your disparate treatment. Thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:4153:AC20:2ED3:E912 (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay, lets try this again.

You added unsupported material to an article, a well-intended error. I removed it, which is appropriate. I told you about it and specifically informed you that, if you had a source for it, you should go ahead and add it back in, but with a citation to the source. You had a source for it, so you added it back in, but with a citation to the source. The final result? The material was added, but with a source, as it should be.

This is exactly how it's supposed to work. The encyclopedia is arguably improved by having some additional verifiable information added.

Now, your position seems to be that if I wish to revert your edit, I must do one of two things:

A: Delete all other unsourced entries, but without giving the editors who added each of them the opportunity to correct their errors; or

B: Undertake a lengthy investigation of each entry, determine which editor added each, and delete them and notify each editor that it's been deleted.

Neither of these are tenable. The middle-ground is to flag the issue, with a template such as {{unreferenced section}} or {{refimprove section}} to allow editors in general to fix it over time. Sometimes they will; see for example, this set of edits to Christine Keeler, mentioned in the discussion just below this one, or this set. And, yes, when unsourced stuff sits around long enough, tagged and unresolved, it often gets cleaned out ([14], [15], [16], [17]; these are all by me, since I have my own edit history most readily available, but I'm not unique in this: see [18] for another editor doing the same).

So your suggestion that editors should acquiesce in accepting unverified material to be added unless they agree to do additional work to investigate other unverified material is not well-taken. It does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Prompt reversion, coupled with prompt notification, however, does work, as you just demonstrated when you followed up and added it correctly.

Finally, I want to point out that the notice you were given ({{uw-unsourced1}}) is the mildest one for the type of edit you made. The wording in it is not mine: it is the result of years of consensus of the Wikipedia community on how to notify an editor making an error like yours of that error. It goes up from there, but usually only for problem cases (of which you decidedly are not one): {{uw-unsourced2}}, {{uw-unsourced3}} and {{uw-unsourced4}}. Giving you the mildest notification, and indeed notifying you at all so you have the chance to fix it, is far from being the newcomer bite you think it is.

If you're going to be editing Wikipedia, I guarantee, you will make mistakes. I did, everyone did, and I bet most of us still do now and again (I know I do). That doesn't mean you should expect those mistakes not to be corrected. It means they present an opportunity for you to learn to develop into an even better editor. Your heart appears to be in the right place, and I hope you continue to develop. TJRC (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi TJRC, thanks for adding citations to this article. Nearly a month ago, I inquired Keeler's website about the possible supply of a free image of Keeler in her prime to upload and include in her article, and I received a response from Keeler's son who runs the website. He responded somewhat ambiguously regarding the copyright before going on to convey some of his own criticisms re the article, and changes he would like made to correct what he regards as misinformation. I still haven't replied as I'm not sure how exactly to respond. As someone familiar with the article, would you mind if I forwarded you the email to have a look at, to consider what could be done? Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't claim any particular expertise in Keeler, but I'm actually very good at copyright (I've taught it in law school), so go ahead and send it if you'd like my input. TJRC (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I've copied it verbatim and sent it. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TJRC: did you receive the email? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain that revert? I merged the 4 hatnotes because it takes 2 rows up instead of 4. Faster than Thunder (talk)

Hello, I'm new to updating Wikipedia and came across this note on The Principia page:"This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject..." Is there anything I can do to help out with this? I did see that list of Alumni. Would sources help with that and would we just remove them if they attended but did not graduate? I also noticed that there is an Alumni list on the Principia College page as well, so is there a need for a little organization with this page? I'm just thinking about different possibilities. Thanks Archivingperson (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Then what do YOU consider to be a reliable source? How is that any less reliable than the other sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.169.80 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

You can read about reliable sourcing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. TJRC (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

TJRC, did you receive the email I sent two months ago or should I send it again? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Crystal McKellar, which you proposed for deletion. The WP:DEPROD reason given at User talk:Explicit#Crystal McKellar. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi TJRC. I've added the above notification as a courtesy. Just for reference, I didn't deprod the article myself; it was actually deleted but subsequently restored per User talk:Explicit#Crystal McKellar. The {{Deprod}} template is usually added by the deprodder before the page ends up deleted; so, it's not really worded for cases such as these. Anyway, if you still feel the article should be deleted, you'll need to start a discussion about it at WP:AFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I noticed that a message you recently left to Cornmazes may have been pretty harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers and stay kind to them. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

FormalDude, please note on their talk page they've been recently warned about this exact offense five times already. Mine is the sixth. Were it not for the repeated warnings against adding unsourced material, and their continuing practice of doing so anyway, I'd have given a lower level. So, no, I don't think it's particularly harsh under the circumstances. TJRC (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello TJRC and thank you for adding an edit summary when you reverted my edit. I agree with some of what you said in the edit summary, but I would like to know why years say current year while months do not say current month. Interstellarity (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Articles should generally not say "currently" or "current year" without qualification. If you see examples of that, you should generally qualify them appropriately. There may be some special cases, and if you can specifically point me to one I can take a stab at explaining (or perhaps disagreeing that it should be that way). TJRC (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain to me the case of 2022 and why it says 2022? A year from now, that statement will no longer be true. Why bother putting it there? Interstellarity (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see that in this case it's not in the wikitext directly, it comes from {{Year article header}}, which is automatically generated. The consequence of this is that, as long as you're reading it online (whether at Wikipedia of one of its many mirrors), it will remain updated. (Still fails for print, of course.) The key difference, I suppose, is that it will not rely on the attentiveness of editors to update it. As soon as the calendar rolls over to 2023 (subject to time zones, of course), it will change from "2022... is the current year, and is a common year starting on Saturday" to "2022... is a common year starting on Saturday", by the action of the template alone, without anyone updating the article (and 2023 will change to "2023... is the current year..."). TJRC (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Would it be possible to create templates for the months as well as years? If so, what would it look like? Interstellarity (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, and I say that cautiously; there's at least three factors you'd want to consider.

First, template syntax is a little primitive and somewhat awkward to use. Take a look at the source for {{Year article header}}, and you'll see what I mean. (Although that template has to check leap-year vs. common-year; and past v. current v. future as well; your hypothetical {{Month article header}} would only need to check current v. not current.)

A second factor is that {{Year article header}} has a substantial Wikiproject behind it, WP:WikiProject Years; there's no similar one for months.

Finally, you'd need substantial buy-in from the editors of the month articles for its inclusion. Unless you want to take this up as a fun learning project without regard to whether it's eventually used, I'd see if you can get buy-in from WP:WikiProject Time, which has a lot of interest in the months articles.

The two successful (for certain values of "successful") templates I've created are {{Caselaw source}} and {{LoC catalog record}}. The latter got some use, but when I created it, I somehow missed the existence of {{LCCN}}, to which it is almost completely redundant. I ended up supporting merging it into LCCN when it came up on TDF. TJRC (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/michael-stenger-sergeant-at-arms-during-january-6-b2110748.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:5644:D000:F56E:909A:E645:EC5D (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Much better source, go for it. TJRC (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the page crucifixion, in the history, why did you revert an edit removing an irrelevant blasphemous image?

I want to know how the image is not irrelevant. This is or has been discussed in the talk page of that article under the title: irrelevant

Moreover, where can i do reporting abuse on the use and existence of that image on wiki? 88.155.12.127 (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is already covered and I have already responded at Talk:Crucifixion. TJRC (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Refer to Talk:Crucifixion#Irrelevant to see a new response! 88.155.16.101 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.96.164.172 (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

FYI, [19]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the beer. Yeah, I've decided to steer clear of any further comment on those talk pages. It's gotten absurdly heated, and I don't think I have anything further to add. TJRC (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

You did your bit. Out of curiosity: Did the IP-OP look like that when you responded, or has something like "I'm also the article-subject" been redacted? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I believe it was exactly that way, apart from the IP address. (When did Wikipedia begin redacting IP addresses?) TJRC (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit puzzled by that myself, thought about figuring out who the revdeler was and ask. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

C messier (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article has several issues. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Bearian:, I don't disagree. My only contribution was to add a wikilink and correct the misspelling "Julliard" a decade ago; well, that and PRODding, it, which was declined. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The buildings are actually monuments. Each building is considered a monument in honor of its namesake (Jefferson, Adams, and Madison). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

It might make sense to phrase it that way (with sources). TJRC (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Since you seem to have your eye on things, please do keep a lookout. I think there may be a situation where an agenda is being pushed. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'm in that awkward position of being a flaming liberal, but one who hates to see the English language torn apart. I haven't yet drunk all the koolaid and signed up for the full leftist newspeak agenda.   TJRC (talk)

Hello,

You reverted two edits I made to change the pronouns used in the article. Before I made those edits, I was totally unaware that you had just reverted someone else's similar edits so mine might have appeared as an edit war. They were not.

Please refer to WP:GENDER. It states:

There are a number of ways of avoiding the use of generic masculine and feminine pronouns; the following are examples.

• Pluralising (not "A player starts by taking up his position", but "Players start by taking up their positions"), although this can be problematic where the text needs to emphasize individuals, or where it creates a need to switch regularly between singular and plural.
• Using he or she ("Each politician is responsible for his or her constituency"), although this can be ungainly if repeated within a short space.
• Otherwise rewording (not "A pilot must keep his spacepod under control at all times; if he loses control, he must hit 'new game' immediately", but "A pilot must keep the spacepod under control at all times; if that control is lost, the pilot must hit 'new game' immediately").

There is no Wikipedia consensus either for or against the singular they. Though some uses of they with a singular antecedent or referent are well established, some uses remain contentious, and style advice varies.

Some methods of avoiding generic masculine pronouns, such as the use of the pronouns one or (especially) you, are seen as unencyclopedic and are thus discouraged in Wikipedia articles.

Clearly, the first edit I made changing he/his to they/their is consistent with WP:GENDER (bullet one) except I used it in the singular case, which has not agreeable to all..

Once a judge meets age and service requirements he they may retire and will then earn his their final salary for the remainder of his their life, plus cost-of-living increases.

The second change I made changing "his or her" to "their" was not necessary, since "his or her" is covered in bullet two, but is a personal preference as a technical writer (shorter is better), and as WP:GENDER states, there is established usage.

Each federal judge serves at a particular "duty station" for the duration of his or her their federal service.

Summary: I don't care about your revert of "they" back to "he or she", because that is an acceptable usage.

But I clearly disagree with your revert of "their/they" to "his/he" which leaves it as "his". My suggestion is to change the paragraph to plural which is backed completely by bullet one, and I'll make the edit as soon as you reply to this, so we can come to a consensus.

Judges who meet their age and service requirements may retire and will then earn their final salary for the remainder of their life, plus cost-of-living increases.

Thanks for your time on this, and forcing me to find WP:GENDER, which I will use as a guide going forward.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:TLDR: My revert is based on grammar, not on ideology. As you note, there is no consensus to use plural pronouns as if they were singular, and that change should not be made without establishing a consensus at least with respect to the article where you make it.

I certainly have no objection to using gender-neutral language, provided you do not introduce noun-verb or noun-pronoun grammatical disagreement. i.e. using "judges ... they" is fine; using "judge ... they" is not. TJRC (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll go ahead and rework the sentences so that they are gender neutral without resorting to using "they" with a singular antecedent. I guess I need to update my CMS.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping to address this editor's persistent efforts to flood articles related to German Idealism with references to what is obviously his own law review article. Shame on him, and shame on the journal for publishing such rubbish.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxist_philosophy&diff=1109728377&oldid=1105214428. (!!!) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Have you read our dialog on his talk page? Astounding how he kept on trying.

I think that out of his approximately eighty edits, only three were not self-promotional. TJRC (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Realtor .

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus and respect it.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Realtor or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your edit on Caitlin Carmichael. I read your edit summary, and I appreciate the fact that you avoided using an unreliable source to support a specific date. I wish more editors saw things that way, rather than using IMDb or another of the many unreliable sources. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @Teblick:; I'm kind of a stickler for sourcing. TJRC (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's nice to meet another editor who feels as I do. Sometimes I tire of removing unsourced content or adding "Citation needed" templates, but I keep at it. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Stop vandalizing my page over this article or else I’ll report you. I’m stating facts and did the proper research and you’re just harassing me for no reason whatsoever. Wandavisionvixen101 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I didn't vandalize your page, nor did I harass you. I left you a message, which is the purpose of talk pages. My message neutrally pointed out why your edit on the Carmichael page was not appropriate and invited you to the discussion on the article's talk page to clarify your position if you believed I was in error. That's it. TJRC (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Poxy4 (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Ruth Brown Snyder mugshot.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply