User talk:TJRC/Archive12

About SilkAir Flight 185

(Regarding this edit)

"The aircraft was built by Boeing in the United States, and the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), under lead investigator Greg Feith, participated in the investigation of the crash."

I am not an expert in English but is this sentence grammatically correct ?

There are two subjects to the verb "participated". But the first subject is a sentence itself of the form subject + verb + complement ("The aircraft was built by Boeing in the United States") !

Bizarre.

--AXRL (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This is moot, because after making the factual correction, I reworded the passage in a subsequent edit to avoid the awkwardness; but yes, it's grammatically correct.

There is only one subject to the verb "participated": "US National Transportation Safety Board". I don't see how you count two. TJRC (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

ok, thank you, I now understand my fault !

--AXRL (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Partition and secession in California

TJRC, I saw you managed the discussion of merging the New California article with Partition and secession in California. Thanks for doing that. Do you think Six Californias, another article about a secession proposal, should also be merged with Partition and secession in California? Six Californias caused a bit of a stir in 2014, but it all came to nothing. It failed to get enough signatures to be on the ballot. I think Six Californias should be merged or at least shortened considerably. It doesn't merit taking up so much space on Wikipedia. Chisme (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably not. It was higher-profile, and had serious financial backing, and got as far as an actual initiative and analysis by the state legislative analyst. The article is long for an article of this type, but it's not fluff. On an admittedly cursory review it appears to be well-researched and well-sourced. I don't see a lot of benefit in losing that information. I would probably !vote against a merge, but I don't have very strong feelings on it.

To tell you the truth, I wouldn't have proposed the merger on New California, either. I think the merge was a good idea, and !voted in favor of it, but I didn't feel strongly enough about it to propose the merge; I just opened the discussion once I saw the proposal, so there would be a decision one way of the other and we wouldn't have a hatnote on the article for an interminable period. TJRC (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

United States v. DuBay

Hello! in reference to United States v. DuBay. I'd like to get it up to Good Article class, but don't really know what improvements need to be made. Thoughts? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I haven't been involved in a lot of GA nominations or assessments. TJRC (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: George P. Kazen

For the moment, I have reverted your edit on the Southern District of Texas list. Until FJC Bio confirms he has truly retired, he should be listed as inactive. If he has truly fully retired, it might take FJC Bio two or three days to be updated. Safiel (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't feel extremely strongly on this, but we have a reliable source saying he's retired. Is there any basis for the position that the FJC bio website is the exclusive source for this information? TJRC (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This is an issue that has tripped us up a number of times in the past. Scores of Federal Judges were listed as retired, when it turned out they were actually merely inactive. The problem is that the term "retired" has a colloquial, as well as legal usage. The judge himself may have announced his retirement. But it MAY have been simply in the sense that he is no longer showing up for work OR it MAY have been in the sense that he truly retired and thus terminated his judicial service. The only source that can truly verify that fact is FJC Bio. Simply as a matter of the utmost caution, I have been listing judges as inactive, until and unless FJC Bio lists them as retired. If FJC Bio is updated to show him as retired, it is easy enough to appropriately update the article at that time. FJC Bio tends to have a lag of two or three days on updating for deaths or retirements. The best way to put it is that I am erring on the side of caution. Safiel (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Great, I'll let it sit then. A couple days' delay won't hurt anything. TJRC (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Update Just to let you know, he has formally retired per the now updated FJC Bio and I have updated all the appropriate articles accordingly. Safiel (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; and for your courtesy in general on this discussion. TJRC (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your welcome. Safiel (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

US Attorneys

Hey TJRC:

I see your comment was asking for proof of confirmation for Cullen, Hur and Joseph. Yes, they were reported out of committee on 3/22/18, as noted here.

That then placed them on the Executive Calendar as follows: Link

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

• 762 1656 Thomas T. Cullen, of Virginia, to be United

States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia for the term of four years, vice John P. Fishwick, Jr., resigned. Mar 22, 2018

• 763 1209 Robert K. Hur, of Maryland, to be United

States Attorney for the District of Maryland for the term of four years, vice Rod J. Rosenstein, term expired. Mar 22, 2018

• 764 1660 David C. Joseph, of Louisiana, to be United

States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana for the term of four years, vice Stephanie A. Finely, resigned. Mar 22, 2018

Their Executive Calendar Number on the aforementioned link would then be 762, 763 and 764.

According to the Senate Periodical Press Gallery dated March 22, 2018: The following nominations were considered en bloc:
Cal. #762 Cal. #763 Cal. #764 The nominations were confirmed, en bloc, by Voice Vote.

According to congress.gov, each nominee has been confirmed by voice vote per the following documentation:

• PN1660 — David C. Joseph — Department of Justice
• PN1209 — Robert K. Hur — Department of Justice
• PN1656 — Thomas T. Cullen — Department of Justice

Feel free to double check if you'd like. It took a lot of research and double checking on my part, but from my standpoint, I see them as being confirmed, although not "officially" sworn in yet.

Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk)

Snickers2686, Great; no objection to adding the confirmation with that source. (On the article I'd reverted, there was no source). Then once he's sworn you can also document him as the actual position-holder. TJRC (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Monkey selfie

Please note that was from August 2014, not July 2017. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, but just as importantly, the basic claim in the sentence, that it was not placed in the public domain by being posted on Commons, is wrong. TJRC (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Michael Collins article

Hey there. I just looked and saw you are one of the top contributors to the Collins article. I plan to take that article (and Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Apollo 11) to FA by the 50th anniversary of the moon landing (next year). You are more than welcome to help if you would like, just wanted to let you know I plan to edit the article significantly from its current state to get it to FA. Cheers! Kees08 (Talk) 07:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That's surprising. I had not thought I'd contributed that much to it, apart from the occasional vandalism reversion. I'm quite the admirer of Collins, so applaud your efforts to tighten up the article. TJRC (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It could have been that you had so many anti-vandalism edits that you have the highest edit count to the article. Sounds good, I will continue working on the article, thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 17:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Mutual assured destruction

Re your comment on my talk page:
Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Mutual assured destruction, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That entire section is unreferenced and could be described as speculation. If you delete my addition, you should delete the entire section. However I personally think that it should be left in as they are mostly fairly reasonable, and this way if someone with a good knowledge of the literature about the subject ever edits the page he'll have as many points as possible to add references to. I understand there is a desire to be pedantic and only accept referenced points. However again in that case you should delete the entire section which has already been flagged up as "This section does not cite any sources". Boiledspaghetti (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that, after ten years, it would be okay to start removing the unreferenced material. To the extent that you mean that, if an article already has problems, it's okay to make those problems worse, I disagree with that. TJRC (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Help! New article "Boulevard of Sabana Grande"

Hello,

Can you review the article (proofreading)? I wrote the article in the Spanish version of Wikipedia. I have already read the article, however.

Thank you in advance. QuinteroP (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)QuinteroP

Superstar

Hi TJRC, thanks for the heads up re my Superstar edits, apologies there, still working on it - I was in the middle of working on it last night when my laptop unexpectedly lost power and blitzed the work I had been doing - currently rectifying that as we speak, please bear with me. Thanks. Dunks (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Us Census estimates

i got the population from us census quickfacts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitopavlovivit (talk • contribs) 03:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Then cite them. TJRC (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

how do i cite sources on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitopavlovivit (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I gave you two links in my note to you: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. TJRC (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Why was my edit removed?

Hello. Just curious as to why my edit of the "At This Moment" page was removed by you. I'm open to contructive critism and am still learning how this goes. It was my first time editing a wiki page. Probably won't do it often, and maybe never again. But I'm a Jimmy Fallon fan and thus the reason for the edit. My reasoning behind adding his cover of the song was based partly on the fact that Seth McFarlane's cover of it is mentioned. If McFarlane's cover "qualifies", then why not Fallons? I thought it was a fair thing to do. Did I simply need to include a link to the video of the cover? I could do that. Thanks for helping me in my learning process here. Apadams360 (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I indicated it in the edit summary: " 1) unsourced; 2) does not meet WP:SONGCOVER." The first one means you didn't provide a reliable source. The second means that the addition does not appear to meet the requirements the community has established for indicating the importance of the song performance.

I have no reason to believe that McFarlane's cover of it should be included either. But just because an article has problems does not mean that it's a good thing to make those problems worse. Instead, it should be cleaned up. The inclusion of inappropriate material in an article is never a sound basis for including additional inappropriate material. (See WP:OTHERCRAP for the same idea in a slightly different context.)

You'll note I also tagged the article as poorly referenced. That's a first stage in cleaning up existing problems. Most editors, if they see inappropriate (unsourced, etc.) longstanding material in an article will tag it for cleanup, giving other editors who believe it should be kept a chance to clean it up; adding references, establishing notability, etc. But if they catch it as it's being added, it's generally removed, as yours was. TJRC (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Addition to Project songs

Just curious about what prompted your addition to WP:SONGCOVER of "or the mere availability of the version as downloadable or streaming audio or video". It is obvious – being available does not make a version of a song noteworthy and the section wording should already make this clear. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It was seeing one too many additions to an article citing a youtube video or an iTunes listing. TJRC (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe lack of English skills is the problem. I don't think adding numerous examples of bad practices is helpful. I'll revert your addition; of course you may take it up on the talk page, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

ETIs

Hi, I am willing to discuss this if you have a clearance. Would need to see evidence of this though, but the drive in question is under lock and key as mentioned due to risks if I ever permit it to be leaked online.

Interestingly it verifies pretty much everything Lazar said was either wrong or incomplete, the "E115" seems to refer to 115In or some other composite where 115 is actually the specific alloy composition used. I did some more research and found that there is a low melting point high entropy alloy that has possible metamaterial qualities, made from five different elements mixed in precise proportions of which two are bismuth and magnesium, when formed it is "activated" somehow by cooling in a strong electric field similar to the method used for making piezoelectric components. Possibly related to Art's Parts?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.3 (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? I don't recognize this as related to any of my edits. TJRC (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

user is asking that his or her autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TJRC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Kkits23". The reason given for Kkits23's block is: "Promotion / advertising-only account: Here to promote a photographer named Sajid Shahid.".

• Blocking administrator: Ian.thomson (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: I see no significant overlap between the two accounts. Autoblock lifted. Yamla (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Erdos-bacon number

Hi maybe you can help me understand something. You reverted my edit by saying that having a finite number is something rare. From what I can gather almost any person that has co-published an academic paper will be able to calculate their erdos number. Most people who publish start off by publishing with their professors who will have published lots and lots of papers with lots and lots of people and will have published with their professors when they started, etc etc so it is almost certain that any publishing author will be able to calculate their finite erdos number. Any person who has worked in cinema or television will be able to calculate their bacon number and it will not be high. I myself have a bacon number of 3 because I was an extra on a television program with Sean Connery who is a 2. How rare is it to have a finite Erdos Bacon number? Dom from Paris (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. What I said was: "Erdos-bacon numbers are notable, and are sufficiently rare that it's not trivia to note when someone has such a number, particularly one of the lower ones." Finiteness doesn't enter into it, and it's addressed to the more rare Erdos-Bacon number, not to the Erdos number or the Bacon number (both of which are common-place; it's the EB number that's rare). TJRC (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

But how rare? There must be ak awful lot of welle known academics (especially ones with pages here) who have appeared in documentaries or had bit parts or extra work and so will have a Bacon number and so a Erdos Bacon number' Probably what's rarer is actors that have co-authored academic papers but not that rare either. Can you say how rare this is? Dom from Paris (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The answer to this question bears no relationship to the question of whether a properly-sourced mention of an E-B number is suitable for inclusion in biographies in principle. Which, of course it is -- and just like everything else needs to be decided on principles of valid sourcing, due weight, etc. Removing the long primary source chains from biographical articles is an obvious yes; removing from Natalie Portman is straightforward; but keeping at Daniel Kleitman or Danica McKellar (the latter, incidentally, is the rare person who would reach WP's notability standards only for her work involving mathematics and also for her non-mathematics related acting) is also straightforward. --JBL (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

What JBL said. It's hard to fit a cogent discussion into an edit summary. I'm explaining my edit summary, but that doesn't get into the necessary detail of a full discussion. TJRC (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TJRC. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the Taney revert

And for explaining why! Really helpful for me as an editor. ChunyangD (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem; apart for cases of overt vandalism, I always try to explain the basis. TJRC (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Small World revision

Hi! You sent me a talk message about my Small World edit. I understood why you reverted back my edits and revised my edits accordingly. Can you please check if this is okay or not? And if they're not, then do what you must. As for the new info I deleted, those all came from ride-through recordings on YouTube and I wasn't sure if those are proper sources and I understand that sometimes they can be dubious, but they do contain specific info I otherwise could not find anywhere else. Thanks in advance! 2601:645:C200:AEA0:7901:C612:A518:8ABF (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly better. I don't know if dlptoday.com is a reliable source, but I'll err on the side of inclusion and assume it is. I don't know whether another editor might feel differently, though. The domain name suggests its a self-published site, not generally treated as reliable.

I did some minor cleanup to your cite. TJRC (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Lennon; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I note that you've been warned against this in the past and deleted the warning from your talk page. Please be aware that deleting a warning is deemed to mean that you have read and understood the warning. It is not a license to ignore it.

If you continue edit-warring the nest step will be to request that you be blocked. Yellow Man 1000 (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no. I reverted back to the status quo. You are the person trying to insert text that has been objected to by multiple editors. Please read WP:BRD and obtain a consensus before re-adding. TJRC (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Cross-dressing in music and opera

Hi TJRC, Good day. Thank you for the info left on the edit summary of the above article. The CSD is for this URL [1] and not this [2] you indicated in the article talk page. I think the [3] is not a backward copy. Let me know if I have mistaken. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I did indeed misread... but I think they're both Wikipedia backcopies. Have a look at History of cross-dressing as of September 28, 2018, a month before the Crossdressing asian blog post, which is dated October 16, 2018. Most of the text found by the dupe-detector was in Wikipedia before that blog post. TJRC (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Revising the list of PACER alternatives

Hi, you recently edited my revision to the list of PACER alternatives and said "List is long enough; and ought to be trimmed; blog is not a RS in any event." I couldn't agree more. I believe the list should be updated to reflect the current state of the world. From the current list, DocketFish no longer exists and neither does Caseflex. It's name has changed and the reference link is its own website. I propose deleting those two names and adding CourtDrive and Docketbird, which is specifically referenced by the federal courts in their emails to attorneys in their respective jurisdictions as quoted in the LawSites article ( https://www.lawsitesblog.com/2018/11/federal-courts-urge-caution-docket-services-vendors-respond.html ). Thanks in advance for your understanding.

Mikikian (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've moved this discussion to Talk:PACER (law) and given a response there. TJRC (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Lakewood, OH

I corrected a mistake (possibly an old vandalism?) that said without a source that Cleveland is to the west of Lakewood, Ohio, but you reverted my edit with no edit summary, likely because you thought it was vandalism. Cleveland is actually to the east of Lakewood (where I live). To confirm this, just look at any map of the area; also, the geography section says Lakewood is west of Cleveland, making Cleveland to the east of Lakewood.

It occurs to me that the wording of the sentence may be ambiguous. It says Lakewood, one of Cleveland's inner-ring suburbs, borders the city of Cleveland to the west. I interpret that to mean “to the west of Lakewood”, which interpretation is widely used in Wikipedia articles. But maybe someone could take it to mean “to the west of Cleveland”. So I’d like to change the wording to Lakewood, one of Cleveland's inner-ring suburbs, borders the western part of the city of Cleveland. Any objection? Loraof (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No objection, I see what you mean now. The existing wording could be read either way; your wording is an improvement. TJRC (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)