User talk:TJRC/Archive9

KKTW (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)I am responding to the reasoning of deleting some of Kristin Kreuk's information. The information you or someone else is posting is false. Kristin Kreuk is no longer with Mark Hildreth and I would really appreciate it if whoever is putting that content on there would stop. I have admired her for over 13 years now, so I know her current status and that she no longer has Dublin. That is why I keep taking that stuff out. Hope that clears things up for you. I don't really get how Wikipedia works. So I just took all the stuff out. However, in the past I didn't write an edit summary, but no one paid any attention to it and put that incorrect info back.KKTW (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

KKTW (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Okay, now I'm being accused of having two accounts. Seriously? I think is going on here, is that someone is purposely write false information about Kristin Kreuk and I keep fixing it and someone doesn't like it. I KNOW what I have updated is true! I think I know more about KK then whoever is writing her page. Seeing as I have been following her since she as 18! I do NOT appreciate someone accusing me of doing something wrong, when all I'm doing is write the truth. I can't say the same for the person who keeps changing her page. But whatever. I'm deleting, My 'ONE' and 'ONLY' account cause I am sick of this crap. But know, that the rest of the KK fans don't appreciate her wikipedia page being incorrect!KKTW (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I am always open to feedback---but you need to be more specific as to what aspect of my edits is harassing. I am somewhat uncertain as to what you are getting at. If you are referring to my reaction on Talk:Disney Renaissance to User:LionFosset in late December about the issue of when the Disney Renaissance ended, then you should be aware that I already recognized that using Steve Jobs' reminiscence of his green-lighting of Tin Toy in such a fashion as a rhetorical device was disproportionately harsh and I apologized on that talk page. And I will try harder to avoid overreacting that way in the future. However, if you are referring to my most recent edit on February 3, I don't know what's wrong with that edit. The grammar and style errors that I was correcting were fairly obvious. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Look at your edit summary. TJRC (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I appreciate what you do for the wiki community.

If I may have a brief moment for your advice... What do you recommend for adding the computer program Metes and Bounds to wiki, which is for getting a visual view from Metes and Bounds data? There is a free/shareware version available on the page I had linked to. Any recommendation would be appreciated.

The Metes and Bounds page is my 3rd time ever editing a page. Not that it matters at all, but the last one was making a citation webpage for reference #3 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_(typeface) and in the mid-late 2000s', I worked on the V (science fiction) page. I know it is not an impressive wiki history, so kinda stuck on what to do in this case. Thank you!

Doozer76 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)doozer76

Hi, Doozer76, thanks for your contributions. Don't apologize for how much; everyone starts somewhere, and as long as edit is a sincere attempt at improvement, it's welcome.

The issue with the EL you added is that, although the program is named "Metes and Bounds", it really is not likely to be of interest to someone looking for an explanation of what "metes and bounds" is.

If I understand your question, it comes down to "where can I add this external link to this computer program"; and I think that that's the wrong way to look at the question. Ordinarily, you don't start with a link and say, "where can I put this?" Typically, your thinking should be one of two or three things (this is all my opinion, by the way, not Wikipedia policy).

The first is when you're reading or editing an article and realizing that there must be some external sites out there worth pointing the reader to, and then finding and adding them. I'll give you an example of this from one of my recent edits, to Michelle K. Lee. She's the nominee to head up the Patent & Trademark office. When editing the article I realized that there were two links I would expect to see, so I found them and added them: 1) a link to her official bio at the USPTO; and 2) the record of her nomination(s) to the office.

Another is when you come across an external site that discusses a subject (call it "foo") and think, wow this really would be of interest to anyone reading about foo. There are two or three things you can do to the Wikipedia article on Foo, then. You can add it as an EL, or you can use it as a reference to add content to the article. (Wikipedia discourages doing both; something I personally disagree with, but that's me.) But this is distinguished from finding an interesting external site and thinking "I must find someplace in Wikipedia to link this from." If no topic really suggests itself as an appropriate topic to link from, don't. We don't want to turn Wikipedia into a link farm.

BTW, a hybrid between these two approaches is that there are some sites that really ought to always be ELs on the Wikipedia articles about them. For instance, I think every article on a movie, actor or director should have a link to the corresponding IMDb page. I think each page on a U.S. government agency or executive department should have a link to that agency's/department's official web page for example.

Anyway, I hope this helps, and remember much of it is my opinion. The key area you want to read is the guideline at Wikipedia:External links. The best summary of that guideline is in a paragraph right at the top: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

I hope you continue editing, and have a good time doing so. TJRC (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

WHY did you undo my edit where I added another notable guest appearance? Someone hacked my password and posted the jokes on the other page that was construed as vandalism, if you look at my history I have NEVER had a history of doing something like that. If you need verification of my edit, then watch the most recent episode of The Goldbergs. Undoing my edit without first asking if I was the one that "vandalized" Wikipedia or attempting to ascertain what the situation was is VERY irresponsible of you. I have redone the edit, so please do not undo it again. Dfdemt (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Your id has a history of vandalism and adding unsupported material. You have added unsupported material here. Please stop. Include a source. The many warnings you've been given should be very clear by now. TJRC (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I JUST TOLD YOU THAT MY PASSWORD WAS HACKED, WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? I have NEVER personally posted anything that could be considered "vandalism". I am going to post the edit AGAIN, please do not undo it, this time I have cited the source as best I know how. If you undo it again, you are in violation of Wikipedia policies because I have cited a source that you can check if you like. It is worth noting that NONE of the other entries in this particular section (notable guest stars) of this article have cited sources. NOT A SINGLE ONE! Stop using a double standard. If you are going to delete my edit, then by your own logic you have to delete ALL of the other entries in this section. Dfdemt (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it with a source. That was the request. Yes, the other entries are unsourced, but please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for an explanation (in a different context) of why that does not justify more additions with the same problem. And, yes, I know you say you were hacked, but there is a long list of warnings on your talk page that you do not appear to read or heed.

You qualified with "I have cited the source as best I know how". If you're unclear on how to do that, several of the comments left on your talk page include links explaining how to cite sources. You should probably read WP:Citing sources, at least.

Finally, with respect to your use of ALL CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS! please see WP:SHOUT. TJRC (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I do apologize for the caps/exclamation points, I was just extremely frustrated because I thought you were unfairly picking on me, because like I said, none of the other entries had sources cited, so it seemed completely unfair to me that I was being threatened with being banned for doing something that everyone else that added something to that section had already done. Surely you can understand my point, and I have struck those sentences as you can see to show my apology. I had tried to cite sources before, but something always got messed up, and I only just now discovered the "shortcut" key at the bottom of the editing window that puts the characters in for you where all you have to do is fill in the necessary info. As far as being hacked, I have changed my password, but I did a google search and found info that said that people have been hacked by bots that "look at" your history and enter vulgar and/or inappropriate edits on a page or pages that you have recently visited to make it appear that the user is doing it deliberately. I followed the WP recommendations for when you think your account has possibly been compromised, so hopefully that problem won't happen again. Dfdemt (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In this particular case there unfortunately isn't a good range to block, whack a mole is the best option. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of my edit to boilerplate text, which you have reverted. The boiler plate in question here is the stuff boilers are made of, not the plate on a boiler that has the maker's mark. A similar kind of plate: boilerplate, was used to print the unvarying parts of the page, while moveable type would be used for the rest. Maybe my edit comment wasn't clear on this. So basically, I think the part about the boilermaker's name plate is out of place. Maybe there's a form of words that satisfies all of this...

Edit: Actually, now I'm starting to doubt myself. We really need an authoritative source to make it clear whether the printing boilerplate was like boiler plate or the boiler maker's plate. The only example linked from the article is just an example of the latter, without any printing reference.

Dominic Cronin (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that was a long time ago. If it really bothers you, remove it again. I'm looking at the OED now, and I'm not sure the OED cite now in the article really supports it. The first two entries are with reference to actual boilers, and don't mention labels:

1860 W. Fordyce Hist. Coal 112 Various descriptions of Iron, such as nail-rods, boiler-plates, hoop and sheet iron.

1875 R. Hunt & F. W. Rudler Ure's Dict. Arts (ed. 7) I. 410 The average resistance of boiler plates is reckoned at 20 tons to the square inch.

The use as text is not until 1893, and does not draw the connection:

1893 Congress. Rec. Aug. 465/1 The country weeklies have been sent tons of ‘boiler plates’ accompanied by..letters asking the editors to use the matter as news.

I agree with you on needing an authoritative source that actually speaks to whether the reference is to the boiler structural material, or to its metal label. TJRC (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.... this book, and some other sources, suggest that there is some disagreement on the origin of the term; and perhaps the Wikipedia article should not try to sound so conclusive. TJRC (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like when I speedy deleted User Talk:Sharkcomputers, Twinkle got confused and sent you the warning for some reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all, that's what I figured. TJRC (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Leo T McCarthy is a Democrat not a republican as stated on the list of the states lieutenant governors. i know this because he was the state assembly speaker when democrats had the majority back in the day. in addition, he ran against barbara boxer, the current junior california senator, in 1992 for the senate, ie Democratic Primary. Please a change needs to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.255.15.166 (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take another look, but you were making a lot of random edits there; changing Wilson to Democratic, and changing McCarthy back and forth. It looked like you were just playing, at times adding clearly erroneous info. If it was just a series of botched edits while struggling to get it right, I apologize for misreading you, but if that's the case, please look into using a sandbox to test your editing; or just use the "Show Preview" button to review and confirm your edits before saving; please don't test-edit on a live article. TJRC (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

(postscript) Okay, I've changed his party affiliation and background color here. Note that in your last edit, you'd gotten the color correctly blue, but listed him as "Republican" (although the word "Republican" linked to Democratic Party (United States)).

I've noted a couple further problems, though. Changing him to blue changed Deukmejian to pink; and what's more, McCarthy served under two governors: Deukmejian and Wilson. I've opened a Talk:List of lieutenant governors of California#Need help from someone good with the table syntax, entry for Leo T. McCarthy discussion on the talk page seeking assistance from someone who is a better with the intricaies of Wikipedia table formatting than I am. TJRC (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Re your 2013 edit discussion: Talk:Pleasantville_(film)#Hershman_death_and_lawsuit

Now 21apr15 the last sentence of a short lede of Pleasantville_(film) reads:

"This film is dedicated to the memories of camera assistant Brent Lon Hershman, director Ross' mother Gail, and actor J. T. Walsh, all of whom died before the film's release."

There is currently no other mention of the lives of these three people, or why their deaths may be relevant to this film and worth mentioning, so prominently. It seems like this sentence should be moved down, or left out.

The previously suggested sentence:

"Cameraman Brent Hershman's death, when he fell asleep driving home after a 19-hour workday on the set of the film, resulted in a wrongful death suit, claiming that New Line Cinema, New Line Productions and Juno Pix Inc. were responsible for the death as a result of the lengthy work hours imposed on the set."

has the advantage of more apparent relevance. I guess I am voting for a short paragraph along these lines, much later in the article.

If there were a separate article for Brent, the circumstances of his death could be explored there, and we could just link to that -- but he does not seem notable enough for this to be a likely solution.

This seems like a case of a messy little aspect getting minimalized to such bland emptiness that it no longer makes sense to mention? Please improve this aspect of the article.-71.174.183.177 (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've made the edit, see [1] and the talk page. TJRC (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Any reason not to just merge Copyright symbol and All Rights Reserved into Copyright formalities? Really neither of them are long enough to justify an article, IMHO, and I've looked for better sources on both of them :/ —Luis (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Copyright symbol needs to stand alone. For one thing, I think it has enough detail in it to justify that. For another, it's an article about typography (note the Wikiproject entry on its talk page, and the prominent {{Punctuation marks}} template on the article itself) as much as it is about a legal subject. A person researching various typographical symbols from that aspect would not be well-served by being directed to an article about copyright formalities, and I think the good folks over at WikiProject Typography would howl about that.

Also Copyright symbol is close to being US-specific. Yes, the Universal Copyright Convention has it, but it's the U.S. that put it there. The UCC was a stopgap because the the U.S. and the rest of the world wanted a multilateral copyright treaty with the U.S., but the U.S. insistence on formalities at the time precluded it from joining Berne. As a result, most of the content in Copyright symbol is likely to be US-centric, and would rightfully raise objections that the resulting combined article did not contain a world-wide view.

All Rights Reserved ? I lean against it, but not as strongly. But if it were to be merged, Buenos Aires Convention is, I think, a much better target.

I'd rather see Copyright formalities (which had been pretty much off my radar screen, although I see I made a tweak to it a couple years ago) beefed up. That article really hasn't been updated significantly since Lquilter (talk · contribs) created it a couple years ago. But I'd rather see it grow organically, rather than just merging in other articles (which invariably get cut down in the spirit of WP:UNDUE).

There are at least four species of formalities, each of which should have a paragraph in this article: copyright notice; copyright registration; copyright deposit; and copyright renewal (now technically registration of renewal).

I'm always a little wary of merging a large article into a smaller target. It generally results in the subarticle material absorbing the parent, and then a reaction by trimming the merged material, losing good content. When I see a large article merged upward, it usually suggests that the target article deserves a little more work.

Maybe I'll take a crack at that next week. It will be US-centric, not only because I know mostly only US copyright law, but because the US has historically been more prominent in its use of formalities than any other country. TJRC (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree w/ TJRC -- better not to merge, and better to beef up. Each type of formality has separate legal significance -- law review articles, legal cases, etc. -- and varying levels of public and creator awareness. These are all highly notable concepts within copyright law, and the individual formalities are often the only thing non-copyright people recognize about copyright, even as what they know about them is completely wrong. So, if anything, we definitely need these articles. If someone searches "all rights reserved" and gets redirected to Buenos Aires Convention they are likely to stop reading right away -- the content will be there but embedded in a large article about a complex legal document. The copyright symbol -- someone looking this up is likely to be thinking it is still important and wanting to know the form of it, or curious about the typographic aspects. In either case, they are curious about the symbol qua symbol and its legal significance -- not its role as part of "formalities" per se.

There are lots of sources, LuisVilla, I'm curious where did you look? Did you look in legal literature and to a lesser extent in the creative industries' trade literature? --Lquilter (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

There was a talk at Berkeley, The Curious Case of Copyright Formalities, given by Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante in 2013. I'd like to get my hands on it. It's apparently been published (Maria A. Pallante, The Curious Case of Copyright Formalities, 28 Berkeley Tech. L.J. (2013). http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj/vol28/iss3/2), but the direct page for it 404s. I'm sure that would be a rich source. Unfortunately, I have no Lexis access without charging my employer, and keeping my job ranks just a little above updating Wikipedia. TJRC (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Just following up to my own comment for posterity: Pallante, Maria A. (April 18, 2013). "The Curious Case of Copyright Formalities" (PDF). Berkeley Tech. L.J. 28 (3): 1415-1424. doi:10.15779/Z386H5V. ISSN 1086-3818. Retrieved December 3, 2015.

I had no source stating specifically what I wrote, but there are many examples currently on wikipedia of sanctioned crucifixions, notably in the case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolius_%28Osroene%29 , and elsewhere used extensively during the repressions of pagans, heretics, and Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.252.158 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I commented on your comment on my Talk page, immediately following your comment. Thank yoiu. PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What made you remove my minor edit on the Copyright infringement article? Don't worry, I'm not upset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborg the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned in my edit summary: WP:OVERLINK. TJRC (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm trying to figure out how to correct the Lake City / Rocky Top connection. Lake City, TN forwards to Rocky Top, TN -- which is great. But services like Facebook utilize Wikipedia for their location data. Our city changed its' name from Lake City, TN to Rocky Top, TN in June 2014. Facebook utilized Wikipedia but comes up with Lake City as the ONLY destination for zip 37769. How do I correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askgriff (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how Facebook gets its data. Wikipedia does not have a function to go from zip code to town name, so I doubt it uses Wikipedia. If it did, Rocky Top, Tennessee properly lists 37769 as the zip code.

Perhaps Facebook just has an old copy of the Lake City article. You should probably ask on Facebook. Looks like an error on their part. TJRC (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi from Zombienaic... Regarding edits on Vincent Dowling.

Yea he was my Dad... he died on May 9, 2013 at 11:29pm in Boston, Ma.

Cian Dowling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombienaic (talk • contribs) 02:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

 Template:LoC catalog record has been nominated for merging with Template:LCCN. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

See "this discussion" for how a similar situation was easily handled. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the tip. Next time I will use this features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyc91 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I see wikipedia showing its left wing bias, everything was fully cited with relevant case law from the united states supreme court. But because it contradicted a moderators left wing views it had to be censored and a verbal threat of a rule violation.Notalawyerxyz (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No, there were a number of problems with that edit. Labeling it as "bartering" and "babies" for example, is not neutral point-of-view. And all your commentary on prior-restraint is simply that, your commentary; it's pure original research. TJRC (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

bartering and babies was from a previous edit that a user of an ip address deleted and I restored by manually copying and pasting from a previous version, but the videos on the matter speak for themselves and it is your own personal disagreement. As far as the case laws that were cited, they were not my legal opinion, but they were the majority decisions and opinions by the united states supreme court which is the supreme law of the land. Had you bothered to do any research rather than flag this would have been plainly obvious, but the reality is you disagreed and you couldn't handle factual material opposing your personal views and politics so you chose the censorship of material facts. Notalawyerxyz (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You should also take a look at WP:SYNTH. I'm not saying you shouldn't post your opinion and your position, far from it. But Wikipedia is not the place for it. TJRC (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the us supreme court who uses majority rulings stating complete axioms of what the first amendment is and also a rule of equity, and, as applied to the first amendment, absolutes on what all other courts are not permitted to do in the united states. Your attempts to hide and somehow justify your own bias behind miscellaneous flags, such as this synth flag at hand, fails miserably. Notalawyerxyz (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, you're taking Supreme Court cases, and then applying them to Orrick's order, and reaching a conclusion and putting that into Wikipedia, is an example of synthesis. Really, I understand you're passionate about this subject, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to publish your observations. TJRC (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Judge Orrick issued an ex parte prior restraint against the media, that is a given. The Us supreme court in carroll v princess anne held that any ex parte injunction against the first amendment violates a defendants due process rights absent a showing that it is impossible to serve or notify the opposing party. The Us supreme court also held in near v minnesota: "The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity." In Alexander v the united states the supreme court held "The term 'prior restraint' is used 'to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.' M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Freedom of Speech § 4.03, p. 4-14 (1984) (emphasis added). Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions-i. e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities-are classic examples of prior restraints." The supreme court has also held that where there is an adequate remedy at law that equity is improper-at least as it pertains to the federal courts-many states have the same rule-and Orrick is a federal judge. All the material is from a single source, that single source is the us supreme court, and all decisions involving the first amendment reached by the us supreme court through the 14th amendment become the supreme law of the land. This isn't a "synth"esis as you call it, nor is it a "nop", nor is it "or". Judge Orrick's conduct, which is a violation of federal criminal law, violate the most basic and clearly established principles of first amendment and equitable axioms of law. All the hyperlinked citations pointed to the page number of the decisions-or the page before for readability- and the citations themselves, unless on the first page, referenced the page number as one would cite in a legal brief. What you are now arguing as a premise, is that people who edit pages with highly cited material facts from absolute authorities which conflict with the political views of the moderators, who can't even find one contradiction-as there are none-as it relates from a more recent opinion from the supreme court, are not welcome on wikipedia. The bias is obvious.Notalawyerxyz (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, this is synth. I know you disagree, and that's okay. At this point, you've been twice-reverted. You've opened a discussion on the article's talk page, and that's a good approach if you believe you're incorrect. I don't think you'll get a consensus from that discussion to add your material, but that's the right approach to make your attempt. TJRC (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi TJRC, re: the prod, I agree and have redirected the title to Martin Amis#Early life, where I added some of her biography to a footnote. Sarah ^(talk) 19:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Yes the changes I made weren't constructive. In my defense, though, What I said was right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.54.23.146 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The above comment relates to this bit of vandalism. TJRC (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

On September 19th you engaged in an edit war based entirely on your failure to actually read the section you edited, you made a very basic error, inexplicable for a lawyer! When I attempted to draw that error to your attention, quietly, here on your talk page, you decided to move my comments to a more public forum here. I have since responded there with an explanation of your error, but you have not yet had the decency to acknowledge that and apologize to me for your false edit comments. That is not the behavior which I would expect of an experienced WP editor. FF-UK (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's quarter-end and a very busy time in real life outside Wikipedia. I'll try to engage with you early in October. I moved the comment to the relevant page because it's a discussion of article content, and the article talk page is where it belongs.

However, please understand, not giving you the attention you want does not amount to "incivility", and two edits in an article does not amount to "edit-warring." TJRC (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

My original entry on your talk page was NOT a discussion of article content, it was drawing your attention to your error in claiming that "Which? does not mention amazon". As far as edit-warring goes, you ignored my revert comment ("The article IS about Amazon, and describes the review issue"), you clearly failed to check your initial assumption, and did not bother to refer to the referenced article, you simply repeated your deletion, with no attempt at discussion. That is a clear case of edit-warring. The disdain shown by that approach to a fellow editor plainly amounts to incivility. FF-UK (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, if I hurt your feelings, I apologize. TJRC (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, but that is not really the point. As you took the issue to the article talk page you need to acknowledge there that you edited without having actually read the article section, or the referenced article on the Which? website! Mendezes Cousins, the editor that re-inserted the over-link to the WP article Which? (apparently triggering your mistaken assumption that it was the reference), has now been revealed as the latest in a long list of pseudonyms for a notorious sock puppeteer. FF-UK (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There is neither means not broad motive at Wikipedia for (generally) anything approaching real justice, nor for (specifically) the type of closed circle in a relational dispute that you are demanding. There would need to be a far more cohesive underlying value system among editors, or far more stringent rule structures and policing, for what you demand to be the norm. Hence, you are wasting time demanding matters be perfectly resolved — not just an apology, but an apology with transgressions represented on your terms. You have a couple of choices: elevate, demanding this relational and organizational perfection, and waste further of your valuable editing time (toward what I predict will be a dead end), or drop the matter. One of these two seems both expedient and wise. 73.210.154.39 (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

… the Halt and Catch Fire techie article. I have moved your sources to further reading, in hopes that they (and similar good sources) might begin to appear in that article. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.154.39 (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey,

I found that the page you last edited Docket (court) has so many broken links Webevangelist (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add those links, my edit that you refer to just cleaned up some references. I personally think the linkfarm in the "Court docket links" section should just be removed. TJRC (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to some of the disambiguation pages around here! However, I would like to draw your attention to the section of MOSDAB that deals with redirects (WP:DABREDIR), since a few of your edits seem to be contrary to that particular guideline. I also used to make the mistake of getting rid of redirects on DAB pages, thinking that the general Wikipedia style policies would apply, so I just thought I'd give you a heads up. Happy editing. -- Fyrael (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Fyrael, thanks for your input. I gather you're referring to this edit, right?

I didn't think The Yellow Fever redirect was really "more or less synonymous"—the section redirected to discusses "The Yellow Fever" but is really about support in general—but I can definitely see that that's a grey area where reasonable minds can differ. Given your objection, I wouldn't change it back.

"Yellow Fever" (Supernatural) is not to a section, it's to a row in a table, but I think that's parsing the guideline a little too finely, and in retrospect, I agree with your take.

But what about Yellow Fever!? That's just a plain old redirect, not within the scope of the type blessed in WP:DABREDIR. I think MOSDAB calls for that to be set out as Yellow Fever! (Señor Coconut album) as in WP:DABPIPING. Do you disagree on that one?

Thanks for your gentle correction and tone, by the way! It's unfortunately becoming all too rare on Wikipedia. TJRC (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, after reading a bit more of your user pages I kind of regret the implication that you'd not have been aware of the DAB style guidelines. I have in fact probably become too accustomed to allowing any and all redirects on DAB pages. The Yellow Fever! case is an interesting one. I'm actually not sure why that redirect is set up the way it is to begin with. I would think that either 1) the album is the sole holder of that title and we should actually move that article to where the redirect currently lives or 2) we've decided that multiple subjects are associated with "Yellow Fever!" and so it should redirect to the disambiguation page. And if we go with either of those two options, then our choices on the DAB page become pretty clear. So, what do you think of my logic on that? -- Fyrael (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Feh, don't give it another thought about pointing out the guideline. Obviously, I didn't know it well enough. You're under no obligation to spelunk my user page prior to making a comment.

On Yellow Fever!: I personally don't like the idea of using punctuation like ! as natural disambiguation (my experience is it doesn't play well with incoming searches from external search engines), but apparently that's the way we do it. WP:SMALLDETAILS gives an example of Airplane and Airplane! being naturally disambiguated by the exclamation point, and in fact one of the shortcuts is even named WP:DIFFPUNCT. That example seems to be directly on point here. Given that guidance, I think, Yellow Fever! (Señor Coconut album) should be moved to Yellow Fever! (there are no other articles beginning with "Yellow Fever!", with the exclamation point) and the DAB page updated accordingly. A hatnote like

{{Other uses2|Yellow Fever}}

would be put on the article, analogous to the one in Airplane!. Do you agree? TJRC (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I put it there was because there is no "rainbow gravity" disambiguation. Besides, the rainbow gravity theory is there. Perhaps if more examples of rainbow gravity are found then that can get it's own disambiguation page but for now I think it should stay. If somebody is looking for that song it may help, again gravity's rainbow is the closest so anything associated with "rainbow gravity" should go in gravity's rainbow along with the rainbow gravity theory.--Awesomewiki64 (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: Saw that it says the theory is sometimes called gravity's rainbow so I get what you're saying now. However, there's still no "Rainbow Gravity" disambiguation so I don't really know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomewiki64 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there any ambiguity about "rainbow gravity"? If not, it doesn't need a disambiguation. If there is, it should be disambiguated, either with a hatnote on the primary topic page (if there are only two article within the scope of the ambiguity), or a new disambiguation page (if there are greater than 2).

My take is that it doesn't belong on the Gravity's Rainbow (disambiguation) unless some people actually think the song is named that, i.e., they would search for "Gravity's Rainbow" when actually looking for the "Rainbow Gravity" song. If that's the case, we do want them to end up with a pointer to the correct song. Do you know the answer to that? TJRC (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody thinks the song is called gravity's rainbow but probably not. Having a hatnote on the physics theory is probably the best idea.--Awesomewiki64 (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so... That article is entitled Rainbow Gravity theory. Do you really think anyone will go looking at an article with that name in search of a song named "Rainbow Gravity"? If the article were named Rainbow Gravity (and maybe it should be), sure; or if there were a redirect with that name that would take them there. But as the article is currently named, I don't see it; it's just unrelated clutter on that page. TJRC (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. It's currently on the page but it can always be removed; however, if someone did happen to be searching for the song, the theory would come up and possibly they'd click on that and be pointed to the correct page. On moving the page, I think calling it "Rainbow Gravity Theory" is unnecessary but if other theories usually have "theory" in their name, then it should stay as it is. Ultimately, you know more about this than I do so what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomewiki64 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's up for deletion now, so the point may be moot. TJRC (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)