User talk:TJRC/Archive4

TheSmokingGun.com

Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!--otherlleft 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New image

I think you may be interested that I've added a new image to Crucifixion in art. What happens next, we'll see. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I noticed that ImmortalYawn got blocked, so maybe there will be a little bit less drama about it. I still think the screenshot from Sailor Moon was the most appropriate one, seeing as the text was actually describing the director's decision to include crucifixion in that anime. But we got shouted down by the rabble on that one. Good luck here. This whole incident has made me significantly withdraw from Wikipedia. I've done a few edits here and there, but I'm no longer planning to really work on anything any longer. TJRC (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the compliment. Was surprisingly easy to whip up, did it mostly as an excuse to fiddle with SVGs a bit. I imagine it would be quite possible to do maps of the ratification of other amendments as well, but not sure they'd be as interesting as that of the 27th amendment. SnowFire (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Burn, baby, burn

Not looking for an edit war over this, so I'll let it go. I just wonder, do you disagree only really contentious points should be fact tagged? AFAIK, it's not in doubt aluminum will burn, especially in hi-0₂ environments. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as far as I know, it's not in doubt, either. I remember the Exocets in the Falklands war. But it's not a matter of what we know to be true; it needs to be verifiable, i.e., with a cite. The flammability of aluminum is not common knowledge like the flammability of wood is. My general sense is that, if there's a reader who has expressed sufficient skepticism about a particular point that they've marked the article with a cite request, the better response it to provide the cite than to delete the request. TJRC (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A valid point. I guess I've been on the other end of fact tags for things that are only in doubt by people who know nothing about the subject, & I'm not sure cites for things like who commanded the attack on Pearl Harbor (to take an obvious example) are really where we want to go, but where I have a feeling we'll end up. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted page

Restored and moved there: User:TJRC/Melvin T. Brunetti/OfficialObituary. Does it help? (Did I get your request right?) --Edcolins (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Food, Inc.

Sorry for the bad edit on the Food, Inc. Talk page! I hadn't caught that the anti-modernist category had been added somewhere along the line, and I agree that that category was inappropriate. And thanks, too, for assuming "food-faith" editing! (You got me laughing!) - Tim1965 (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could take credit for cleverness on the "food faith" edit summary; but it was a fortuitous typographical error. It made me chuckle when I saw it, too. TJRC (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Julliard

Hello TJRC,

To answer your question, I was planning to write an article concerning Éditions Julliard, because it was the publishing house of Françoise Sagan and Jean d'Ormesson.

Greetings,

(RaF (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Yuja Wang

Mystery Recording. Her debut album was with Deutsche Grammophone. At the age of 8, she hadn't even started her formal training. Additionally, Yuja does not even acknowledge the mystery album. Furthermore, nobody can find the mystery album. I challenge you to find it.BellsFromSeychelles (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Her publicist, Lisa Jaehnig(212) 315-1300 "NO ALBUM EXISTS"BellsFromSeychelles (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There, please revert my change back and feel free to state that I was right and you were defending something wrong. Muahahaha.BellsFromSeychelles (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Zengar Zombolt has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. DaiZengar^{Smite evil} 23:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It was not a a misuse. It was a reference to your edit here. I will construe your removal of the warning in line with WP:REMOVED; specifically, The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history. TJRC (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am Sorry

I am sorry for that, I was not aware that I restored vandalism, I am sorry that you had to take time out of your day to fix my mistake. --Clarince63 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Trout writer

"Trout the writer," as in WP:TROUT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

about Dongling

I undid your modifications about Dongling vibration. The original page which was created by me only contained basic company profiles. If people think it is Advertisment and simply delete it, it is fine. Those later added "reference" is cheap propaganda stuff that has little value as reference. It is paid "news". The writers did not even bother to make it sound like news instead of propaganda.

blackmoth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmoth09 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I am so sorry for my edits about foot roasting. I thought the article needed more promotion and some embellishment. However, clearly some of my edits could be seen as unconstructive and therefore I understand why you reverted them. Sorry for the damage I have caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.73.63 (talk), 129.67.73.72 (talk); 11:53, February 23, 2010

List of taekwondo grandmasters

Hello TJRC, after what seems to be a phase of people complaining about martial arts articles in general, or about me in particular (I was accused of vandalising an article, amongst other things), your note came as a pleasant surprise. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the cite on the Ellison reference to Koenig. It was important to me to have that touch in the article. Best, Abrazame (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

De nada. I didn't do much more than type the quote into Google Books and summarize into cite format. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Heparin

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Heparin/GA1. It appears that large parts of the article are copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for reverting the Vandalism on my user talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I must have edited your talk page not too long ago, so it was still in my watch list. I often look at IP edits of any page for obvious vandalism, and revert when found. TJRC (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Barnstar

Thanks - I always to try to encourage new editors as I were one once (inexperienced and afraid) as well!--Mike Cline (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Gourmandises

Why did you change name of the article? See for example Seul (album) and Seul (song). James Michael 1 (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page and user page! Any idea what this person was up to (Was it just vandalism or they really thought that they were helping) --Clarince63 (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was vandalism. He hit a few other pages, I think, too. TJRC (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Trademarkia.com

Hi, I noticed today that back on 14 October 2009 you cleaned up several Trademarkia edits. You may be interested in the discusson (now two weeks old) at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Rabhyanker.2C_company_trademarkia.com. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Thanks, I was just on the way to fixing that deletion request. I realized my mistake. Xe7al (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Panorama-village-logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Panorama-village-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

BCIA page move

I really appreciate your moving this page. 01:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredricshaffer (talk • contribs)

No problem. In a similar situation in the future, you can move the page yourself. There's a "Move" option on the tab bar of each page, after "Edit" and "View history." If your browser window is not wide enough, it may be under the down-pointing triangle. TJRC (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc.

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc.. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability explained + know of subject first-hand.

TJRC, thank you for your input. I greatly appreciate it. The article about Stephen Wozniak the actor has been greatly trimmed to express pertinent, notable information. This person starred in a well-known TV special based on a best-selling novel and starred in a greatly controversial feature film, amongst other projects. Indeed, I knew the subject briefly, though several article writers have also known their subjects in real life (which is why I have the handle "Hazmanager." I worked for the subject in 2007 and started my Wiki account then. I no longer have contact with the subject. I am a writer and also a supporter of the films and special film genres that the subject has been in."Hazmanager (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the input. You'll probably want to make your points on the afd page; no one will be looking for your comments on my talk page. TJRC (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Porn Hub AFD

Hello TJRC, I've commented on your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn Hub, and was wondering if you'd have a look. You make a good point, and I'm not trying to change your mind. To be honest I don't have that much experience with the notability of websites, but I didn't know if you were aware of some of the thoughts on web rankings. if so, please feel free to disregard! Cheers, --BelovedFreak 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

St. Augustine High School

Thanks for the heads up on this article. I should have looked at the article's history before I made my change. I would have undone the change by 80.194.231.189. It appears that most of this user's sporadic edits are unconstructive. Mgreason (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. You made a pretty good dab page considering you hadn't seen the history; parts of it were improvements over the old page. In the end, you made it better than it was before 80.194.231.189's edit. TJRC (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Whoops, all I saw here was "Linux kernel". Thanks for the revert.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Esther Ku

hi, since you commented on the afd maybe you would want to help here, but its fine if you dont Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Esther Ku Aisha9152 (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

iPhone

(From my talk page) The name "iPhone 4G" is inappropriate because it (probably) does not use 4G cellular technology. [1] We decided that iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS were inappropriate because it would lead to mostly duplicate information. We do have List of iPhone OS devices, but we'll need to wait until it's official. I suggest we take the content and sources and merge them into iPhone#Fourth generation prototypes, salt the page, and every other similar page we can think of. (If you're not an admin, tell me and I'll handle it.) HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Since that comment, I have improved the section in the main article to include everything from the new article that I think is notable. If I have missed anything, please add it to the main article. I have deleted iphone 4g on grounds of wp:a10. Thank you for notifying me. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism paradox

Just FYI, I have commented on your self-referential-vandalism paradox at Template talk:User Vandalized. My head hurts, too. Cheers!--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD Closed

It looks like someone allready closed the afd but the current article exhibits no problems in my view. Congratulations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sack tapping talkpage restoral

Thanks for the good faith comment. I don't remember wiping both sections. I knew I want to delete the one that had the WP:NPAs going on. That being said, the other one about not being noteworthy is moot too. If you review the article history, an admin reversed another editor who slapped notability and recentism tags on the article. The article is WP:RS sourced and notable because of the documented scrotum loss. In addition, the admin noted that had the article not been notable, the DYK review process would have effectively begun a deletion process. The DYK factiods on the frontpage undergo scrutiny from at least two editors, one of whom is an admin. What do you think? ----moreno oso (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on the notability of the subject and whether the article should exist. I only got pulled into it from the discussion at Talk:Roshambo; the article there (now a redirect) was frequently vandalized, for example as here. When Sack tapping came to my attention, I applied a little clean-up to it.

I would expect this would be a candidate for being merged into another article; I'm surprised that it has such specialized attention. But I don't feel strongly about it, and no target comes obviously to mind.

I probably disagree with User:Huey45's comments. I tend to be an inclusionist, and this is not coverage of a news incident. But I felt his initial comment was properly addressed to the content and existence of the article, and should be retained, regardless of my own feelings about it.

I realize you were cleaning up a gross breach of WP:CIVIL, and applaud you for it. TJRC (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this, and for filling the Autoreviewer request. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Figured I might as well do double duty while I was already fiddling with Special:UserRights. ;)--Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing?!

The reason for the disambiguation is because as Wikipeterproject pointed out, two countries use the same term for similar services. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A little context, please. TJRC (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Something you may want to get rid of

Hi. If you don't need this for anything, you may want to request its deletion. Last April 20, someone recreated the hoax article in userspace, and it looks as if he probably did so by copy/pasting your preserved version of the page. (Among other things, the recreated article reflected the bot changes to the image calls on your page.) The recreation wasn't caught until I noticed it today. Deor (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. That was certainly an unintended side-effect. I've blanked it, and another amusing hoax article I'd retained. TJRC (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

LINKVIO Concerns for MMfA video clips

Hello TJRC, I noticed that you and LegitimateAndEvenCompelling are reverting each others edits back and forth concerning a potential WP:LINKVIO concern over a reference citation to copyrighted material (Fox News clips on the MMfA website) on the Harrison Schmitt article. We are in the midst of a lengthy discussion concerning contributory infringement copyright concern of a similar MMfA video clip on the Talk page of another article, Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy#COPYVIO. I am wondering if you be willing to put that matter on the Harrison Schmidt article on hold, and not revert his edit, while we resolve this issue. The discussion has been very courteous and I expect we will resolve the situation eventually as to whether or not MMfA video clips used in such fashion are permissible or impermissible in terms of LINKVIO. Thank you! Sincerely, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And I explain there exactly why the Harrison Schmitt MMfA link also violates WP:RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Notifying

Notifying article creators of a speedy deletion is not required. I choose not to because the article creator has not been active on Wikipedia at all for nearly 4 years. エムエックスさん 話 02:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not required, but it's still good form. TJRC (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

San Francisco Bay Area

Please review the edits at the San Francico Bay Area article. What should be done next (or last) to stop the chicanery there? Regards, Norcalal (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see: Proposed Deletion: Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 15-17

Please see here: Wikipedia_talk:Service_awards#Proposed_Deletion:_Category:Wikipedian_Service_Award_Level_15-17 WuhWuzDat 10:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

ShareVantage

Hello. I recently added an article for the company "The ShareVantage". You marked it as a possible advertisement and I do not understand why. I have looked at countless other company articles such as "Symantec" and "ShareFile", and I feel like the content is in line with those articles. I believe I used a neutral viewpoint and listed factual information. I'm new to Wikipedia and am trying to follow the rules. Can you help me understand what the problem is with my content? I would appreciate it. Coloradorocket (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Coloradorocket

I cannot find any evidence that this is a notable company. Symantec, in contrast, is highly notable, getting substantial coverage in generally published materials. See WP:GNG for Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. See also WP:COMPANY for guidelines that are specific to organizations such as companies. Most importantly, however, don't discuss it with me, make your case at the AFD page. I don't think you're breaking any rules, but a couple articles you have created don't seem to have sufficient notability to have an article. TJRC (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

concord LS

Thanks! You did a better job, much better, than I did.--S. Rich (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Take It Off

This has been discussed multiple times on different articles. WP:ORDINAL states "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers. However there are frequent exceptions to these rules." ... "# Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.
This means you must right numbers lower then 9 as nine, but if you follow that rule you cannot have 86 and nine, it must be eighty-six and nine. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've made all the rankings consistently numbered. TJRC (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

They should be written was fifty not 50. Per rules stated above. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, per WP:ORDINAL, they should be listed as numbers. But I'm not going to edit that article any further. If you want to keep them spelled out, that's fine with me. I just went in to correct tweleve to twelve. As long as you're not going to "correct" that, too, I don't intend to edit further. TJRC (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yuja Wang fansite

Hi,

About the link to the fansite, I first removed it from all Wp. But then I saw that there is a link to this fansite on the official website of Yuja Wang. I do not know what the rules are on Wp:en, but on Wp:fr it seems to be quite ambiguous, so I just want you to know it is an official fansite. Zandr4^[Kupopo ?] 15:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Ninth Circuit Edit

Could you please explain to me the effect of your recent edit to the Ninth Circuit article? I can see the edit difference, but I don't understand technically what you did, why, or its impact on the article. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. By default, when you add a category tag to an article, it sorts on the category page under the title of the article (although that can be overridden by such techniques as using "listas", commonly used to make article names like "Raymond Burr" globally sort as "Burr, Raymond").

In this case, a plain [[Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] would cause this article to appear on the page Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under "U" for "United States Court...", the title of the article.

But the category tag takes an optional parameter that it uses to sort by. By using [[Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit| ]], it will sort as a null (or maybe it's as a blank, I'm not really sure), before every other article on the category page. This is appropriate when the article is the main article for the category. If you go to the category page here, you'll see that the main article is now listed before any other articles. Some editors prefer to use a '*' rather than the null, causing it to be first and to have a star, but it's the same idea. TJRC (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. One more question if you know. Where is this optional parameter documented?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, beats me. It's just something I picked up somewhere. TJRC (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, here it is: WP:SORTKEY. TJRC (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Good for you, you found it, not always an easy task on Wikipedia. I dunno about you, but until I started actively editing on Wikipedia, I had never seen the word eponymous (eponymous category is mentioned in the sortkey section) used much. Wikipedians LOVE the word. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd seen it, but only referring to CDs (or "albums", to old folks like me) named after their artists, like this one. Hey, look! There's an eponymous category called Category:Eponymous categories. Should it contain itself? TJRC (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ELP

Really? Even with the rest of the criticism you don't think the blender blurb fits? U crazy dood.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Adding perfume to a skunk does not make a skunk smell any sweeter. As we've said all along the Blender piece is not criticism; it does not belong. The rest is mostly okay. It should be cleaned up a bit (I'd like to see better distinction between overall criticism of the band and of the Love Beach album; right now they're confusingly conflated), bit it's a good start. I'm about to take off on a short holiday. I'll look at it when I get back. TJRC (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I truly do not understand how this could not be considered criticism. Doesn't a skunk's smell in context make a difference? I think so. The Blender blurb further demonstrates how lowly some people thought of the band.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Just glancing at a couple of definitions for criticism and the everyday meaning of it, the Blender blurb is technically criticism.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. For all the reasons already stated on talk page, over and over and over again, it's not criticism. Go re-read it if you like, it's not worth repeating. Good for you for digging up some real criticism; the article needed it. But that doesn't justify citing a humor piece like the Blender article as though it, too, were criticism. TJRC (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

All those reasons are poorly founded and poorly researched. A "humor piece?" Have you seen the authors responsible for this article? They are well respected critics. It seems as though people made up there minds and, in the face of all evidence to the contrary including wiki policy, refuse to reasonably discuss/examine the facts.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Adobe v. Southern Software case

Hey, thanks for all the cleanup on Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.! I'm new and your fixes were really helpful.

ToastIsTasty (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Little cleanups like the ones I did are small incremental improvements. You get the credit for doing the hard work of starting the article in the first place. TJRC (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Lamparello v. Falwell

Thank you for your helpful edits and tips on Lamparello v. Falwell! It really helps me to learn the best Wikipedia practices. I appreciate it! LisaFowler (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a quick question though - while the case does not directly concern Falwell's anti-homosexual statements, the factual information makes several references to Falwell's statements and position on homosexuality (and as you know, his statements motivated the gripe site in question). I attempted to link to the discussion about Falwell's anti-homosexual stance in several different ways in order to comply with best practices but all of these references were removed. May I please ask your advice on how to include this relevant information in a more natural way? I don't believe it is sufficient to refer only to the Jerry Falwell page, especially since there is a substantial section dedicated to LGBT Issues. I know sections can get renamed and removed, leading to dead wikilinks, but is there a better way to provide this reference? Thank you again! LisaFowler (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that gets done sometimes, and I don't think there's a clear standard on whether it should be. I think it's enough to link to Jerry Falwell, as is already done. A reader interested in Falwell, including his statement and positions on homosexuality, will be inclined to read that. The only times I've seen a link into a specific heading of an article was where the article being linked to was not itself being otherwise linked to. But here, we've already got the link to the Falwell article. Unfortunately, the applicable MOS here (WP:MOSLINK#Link specificity) is short on advice here, merely commenting on the technique. TJRC (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lamparello v. Falwell

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Rose Jang

Thanks for your input and advice. I learn more and more as time goes by. Its all really helpful. I very much will respect other contributors edits. I think I was confused. Although I never edited someone elses contribution I might have marked a box that said I did which I won't do anymore. Also, Rose Jang is her name and owns the trademark to this name as a musician. Will this make a difference? Thanks! Bags16float (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read the links I provided on your talk page. Do not call her "Rose"; in an encyclopedic article, we use the subject's surname after the initial mention, see WP:SURNAME. A trademark claim has no impact on this. I've reverted your most recent change. TJRC (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Datalink Computer Services incident, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Smallman12q (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rivermark of Santa Clara

I've not actually been in the position to seek the banning of an IP contributor. Do you know the process so we take care of 12.48.195.73 assaults? Rivermark is apparently not the only article that has been harassed by this person. The IP was blocked in 2009 for a month. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 20:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked too closely at his history. I'm not sure these are vandalism; he seems to be of the position that "upscale" is POV and doesn't belong in the article. I disagree, in that it's reported as "upscale" outside Wikipedia, and is so cited. But I think it's more of his editorial misunderstanding (given his edit summaries) rather than malicious vandalism. TJRC (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the last vandal-like edit I just reverted today. The annon editor actually removed the term from the referenced quoted material itself. I think the redaction of an actual quote makes it clear there this is a malicious intent. At a minimum, I'd like to see this article semi-protected. Your thoughts? — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 21:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You could request semi-protection at WP:RPP; my sense, though, is that Wikipedia administrators require a pretty high level of IP vandalism to semiprotect. I don't know if a few vandal edits per month will be persuasive; I've usually seen semiprotection where there's one or two such edits daily. You can give it a try, though. TJRC (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Before we go through that trouble, are there another other actions that can be perused to address this annoyance? — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 07:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Federal building photo help

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Thank you for looking outside the box! KimChee (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This barnstar refers to the discussion here.

Slade - Amazing Kamikaze Syndrome

In connection to the peacock problem - I fully agree that the info stepped over that boundary however I believe your last edit was unnecessary as all terms were removed i.e. ledendary. Peacock doesn't state anything wrong with explaining the meaning of a track and also quotes from interviews. I have edited again to what I believe is fair, simply explaining the tracks on the album without using promotional words.Ajsmith141 (talk) 09:45, 01 December 2010 (UTC)

My edit did not address only the peacock issues (although it certainly did that). It also fixed broken grammar and usage issues and removed original research. The "explanations" of the tracks were all OR. TJRC (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything written was based from the official albums remastered edition booklet which all remasters were confirmed by with the band. Wording was edited to make it a fair point view so song meanings and interview pieces shouldn't be an issue. Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:12, 01 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you be interested in being an advisor about a documentary on the Panama Canal?

Hello, I noticed that you have more than ten edits on the Panama Canal article. First of all I would like to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Secondly, I am writing to ask you if you would consider participating as an advisor to a group producing a documentary about the canal and its history. If this is of interest to you please drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Psingleton (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. However, I don't have much expertise about the Panama Canal at all. I only made a couple substantive edits, adding some information about Martyr's day and updating the record-setting toll; the majority of my edits were simple vandalism reversions. Good luck with the documentary. TJRC (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, It looks like we found a few people that can help. Thanks for getting back to me. Psingleton (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)