User talk:TJRC/Archive14

Caught in an IP block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 104.129.192.0/20. (This the Internet connectivity provided by Kaiser Permanente in its waiting room.) TJRC (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This IP range is indeed a webhost, which is often the case for public WiFi. You will have to wait until you have left the waiting room to edit. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

eternal september

not arguing your reversion, but the service is called “eternal september” because it provides free usenet access, in a play on the article topic. Peter Flass (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but that's just a play on words; the server has nothing to do with the phenomenon apart from the name. TJRC (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information you keep adding to Fatima

I'll give you a chance to justify your edit (changing sourced dates to unsourced ones) but if you can't come up with sourcing for your preferred version I'll add the correct dates back. 80.195.228.113 (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You're making your changes to the wrong page. Fatima is a disambiguation page, used as a navigational aid to help people find the right article they're looking for. Don't change the entry on Fatimah; if your claim is correct and uncontroversial, make that change on the Fatimah article. Put any appropriate references on that article. Don't put them on a disambiguation page.

If your edits are not rejected on the Fatimah article, then you can update the disambiguation page Fatima with the updated dates.

Don't add references or lengthy descriptions on a disambiguation page. It's supposed to be minimal and just direct readers to the article they're looking for.

You've been directed to WP:MOSDAB a few times. Read it. Follow it. If you keep flouting it, you'll likely end up blocked. TJRC (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't follow your recommendation because the page is protected. To make it factually accurate could you remove everything above "Life before the death of Muhammad" (you can do this by highlighting the text in the edit window and then pressing any letter key) and replacing it with the following:

[copy-paste of entire article deleted]

I have nothing to add to the above. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines if you intend to keep editing. TJRC (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You're asking me to do the impossible. If you can get the page unprotected for a short while I will do the job myself. 2A00:23C7:C987:DF00:A943:494A:DD00:3C4A (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Submitting a protected edit request gives you and others the chance to examine the changes beforehand. I will draft one and post it at Talk:Fatimah. The changes will be as proposed here, with one exception: inline citation [33] finished up with a "|" symbol. It should of course have finished up with curly brackets "}}". I will check this page for comments before submitting my request.2A00:23C7:C987:DF00:90C8:8B55:70B2:3170 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Steel Breeze

Thanks for the reply and explanation. At a reunion of sorts from at Davis, California several of us who attended UC Davis and couple who worked at a small clothing store business owned by Rod Toner, Carole Mindlin & Dan Mason called Nice & Tasty and were sad to see a few of the original band members not listed. We went to dozens of their rehearsals and performances at UC Davis, the Oasis Ballroom in Sacramento and other clubs as well as driving hours to see them compete in a few Battles of the Bands. Carole worked at the door of some of the clubs collecting money from patrons. Gordon went off to Harvard first. There was a bass player named Andy for a while too, but we didn't remember his last name. Also another singer named Kathy, but do not know her last name either. We thought it mattered to get the full history and to get UC Davis mentioned in there too. https://www.ucdavis.edu/

So the reliable source for the information is really former UC Davis fans and employees of Nice & Tasty. A group requested edit.

Rod Toner, the founder of the band, would be able to confirm this info as reliable. Is that possible, to ask him? He worked at the UC Davis newspaper too, which might be interesting to add. The Cal Aggie. https://theaggie.org/ 24.68.114.22 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

We really need a published source. Have a look at WP:RS: "reliable, published sources".

It's not only about correctness (although there is of course that); but also that Wikipedia is not a place for something to be published for the first time. If no ordinary sources have deemed it worth covering, Wikipedia is not the place to start. TJRC (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hard Sci-Fi Remembrance of Earth's Past and Interstellar

Hi, thanks for the feedback but I think removing the The Three Body Problem trilogy is a mistake :) As citation I would use the wikipedia pages of the individual books themself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three-Body_Problem_(novel). They are classified as _hard_ sci-fi there!

Insterstellar is maybe hard sci-fi (it's maybe on the edge, I'm not absolut about it :)). Would you count this as valid citation: https://theconversation.com/interstellar-gives-a-spectacular-view-of-hard-science-33991 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragnarök (talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can't use Wikipedia as a cite to itself. You can look at the other page and if it has a cite that does support the claim, you can use the same cite in the hard SF article.

I don't have any opinion on theconversation.com as a RS, but wouldn't object to it. And Kip Thorne has an entire book on the film that demonstrates it's hard science.

Again, it's not that I disagree on whether the works are hard science fiction. I agree that both are. But your opinion and my opinion don't matter. We need published third-party reliable sources that show it is viewed that way. TJRC (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Polanski

AGREE 100% that the story of the statutory rape should not be at the very top of the intro. thank you for removing it from the intro. Julieprus (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hah, actually, I was the one who restored it. You want to thank Ezzex, who removed it, and then reverted my restoration.

I do think it belongs (probably in the third paragraph, though), because Wikipedia serves more than film buffs, and for many other readers, the basis for his notability is his status as celebrity fugitive. But with two editors looking for its removal, I won't press the issue. TJRC (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I also think the infobox for criminals was wrong to use here. Such boxes (for criminals) should be deleted all together.--Ezzex (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. I probably should have limited the revert to that one line, in retrospect.

infobox criminal is a little weird. It's not like it's a job. TJRC (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

David Byrne

TJRC Thank you so much for the information! I just re-uploaded the awards content, which we agree is essential, with citations. Let me know if i made any mistakes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.68.21 (talk) 01:11, March 2, 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I'll see if I can find a better reference than IMDb for the BAFTA. TJRC (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing.

I did nothing of the sort. I was simply writing a proven fact, and I even gave a reference proving that statement I made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HulkSpider (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You'll note that I actually first reverted as "good faith"; but then when going to leave you the typical bland warning, I saw your earlier warnings and your edit history, and changed my opinion.

Just so we're clear, Conservapedia is very clearly not a WP:RS, and an opinion posted there is not "a proven fact". Importing crap from Conservapedia to a Wikipedia article is distinctly disruptive editing. TJRC (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

NPA

Do I really need to remind you that WP:AGF and WP:NPA are policy? You're crossing a line with your attacks and unsults. You've been here long enough to know better. Guettarda (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's not a personal attack. It is an opposition against other editors to use Wikipedia to advance their position, which I find shameful, even when I agree with the position.

But I've said my piece. I hope the discussion will come to its collective senses. TJRC (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Jacob Cooper (composer) page

Thanks for reviewing my page, Jacob Cooper (composer). The page was originally made by my record label in 2013/4, and now I'm trying update it myself. To get around the conflict-of-interest issue, is it possible to submit my changes for review by an outside source? Another more specific question: most of my edits so far were to the "Compositions and Projects" section, and it seems like these shouldn't each have a reference, since they don't for other composer pages. If needed, though, they could all use the single reference of my website (https://jacobcoopermusic.com/sounds/).

Thanks for helping me out with this--as you can probably tell, I'm new to wikipedia editing!

Jmcooper02 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Flagellation EngVar

Sorry, I didn't realize that it was a different version of English! Thanks for clarifying.

TetanicRain7592 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)TetanicRain7592

Thomas Knoll

Hi There. Thank you for the message. I am Cheryl Dimont, Thomas Knoll's wife. 172.91.92.101 (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, but Wikipedia editors have no way of authenticating statements claiming relationships like this. And and even if that were not the case, that does not change that you need to include reliable sources for the edits you make, particularly on biographies of living persons. Wikipedia is not a site where information that has not been reliably published elsewhere is published for the first time.

If information has not been reliably published somewhere, it should not appear in a Wikipedia article; Wikipedia's policy is no original research. That is applicable to all edits to the encyclopedia, even if the edit is being made by the subject of the article or someone closely related to them. TJRC (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Kristina Pimenova ‎and Anastasia Bezrukova ‎

Google listed their heights as 5'3" and 5'7" respectively. I made edits on their pages based on what Google said. 2601:883:4280:28B0:A45B:CC29:47BD:5DE8 (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at this edit. You did not provide a reliable source, as I mentioned on your talk page.

A Google search is not a reliable source, in any event. A particular site it finds may or may not be a reliable source.

You mention Anastasia Bezrukova, so I assume you're referring to this edit. That was reverted by a different editor, Moscow Connection, not me, presumably for the same reason: lack of a reliable source, and in the Bezrukova case, actually conflicting with a cited source. TJRC (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"Actually conflicting with a cited source." – Yes, sure, I checked the source, and it said "174 cm". So I reverted the IP's edit. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi TJRC, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

...that edit...

...is one of the "good hand" edits of a long-term vandal, whose other edits are suppressed because they contain pretty vile examples of outing, harassment, and threats of violence, including rape threats. I don't disagree with your edit, but I thought maybe you should know. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I recognize your ID as a purveyor of fine edits, so I figured you had good reasons. It's also why I blanked the "undo" edit summary so it didn't show up as a reversal of your edit. I haven't seen any of their other edits, but just noticed this one in isolation was good. TJRC (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Howard W. Blake High School

Good afternoon, if you feel something needs to be sourced, there is no need for you to delete it, you just need to put the following tags: , .Tecmo (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No, not if you can catch it just as it's being added. Better to revert and let the editor who added it (who maybe has the source) re-add it if he actually has it.

{{cn}} is best for stuff that's been in the article for a long time, to provide an opportunity to add sources before they get deleted.

Bottom line: if you don't have a source, please don't add it to the article. If you do have a source, please provide it. TJRC (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for spotting that. As you surmised, I cut-and-pasted the wrong link. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Just so you know, when I (and presumably anyone not-you) clicked on the link, we get a general error message from Gmail, and no indication of the mailholder's identity or anything else; just the error. TJRC (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

New to Wikipedia. Thanks for the updates on National Association of Realtors and pushback on the anti-vandalism bot. I had the facts right, but didn't think to use references. Going forward, I will be mindful to use references when changing names. I will also be more conscientious about differentiating minor edits and regular edits. Fbpfdemo (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding edits made by User talk:VipinSingh1994

Hi, I noticed that you reverted some of the edits made by this editor, he has made hundreds of good faith but unnecessary and inaccurate edits recently by trying to add NIFTY 500 component on every one of the index's constituent companies. Now I don't know how well versed you are with indexes in general but this particular index is not used much in India, and I see no particular reason to specify it on 500 company pages. Not to mention the fact that he's listed them all as NIFTY 500 'component' instead of the universal 'constituent' on all these pages which irks me because I've spent hours trying to ensure consistency on this very topic. I honestly have no clue how to correct so many edits or if they should be corrected at all. I am definitely in favour of reverting these edits but once again, there are hundreds of his edits to revert. You seem to be a very experienced editor and I would like your help in this matter. Thanks Debitpixie 💬 12:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Phonographic Performance Limited

Hi there, how can we ensure that users of Wikipedia can easily find "PPL" (which is the name Commonly used name for Phonographic Performance Limited by the Company itself, it's 110,000 members and the 100,000's of License Fee payers)? See their logo. £271.8 million was collected by the in 2019 so they are a Notable Company and it should be easily accessible via the search term "PPL" currently it's not obvious. Do you have any suggestions?

My aim was to include "PPL" in the title as "Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL)" to clarify who they are but as they are commonly known as "PPL" maybe a better title would be "PPL (Phonographic Performance Limited)"?

Thanks for any input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ888kmg (talk • contribs) 21:46, August 23, 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's named correctly now. Parentheticals are used as a disambiguation technique, not as search aid, and they're not very effective at that anyway. So neither "Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL)" nor "PPL (Phonographic Performance Limited)" is a correct title. You might to read WP:TITLE to get a better understanding of article titles at wikipedia.

Right now, if a user enters "PPL" by itself, she will be redirected to the primary PPL article: PPL Corporation. That article includes a hatnote: "'PPL' redirects here. For other uses, see PPL (disambiguation)." And that page lists all the PPL articles, including Phonographic Performance Limited.

Now, I considered whether the article on the PPL corporation really was the primary topic for the initials "PPP"; perhaps Phonographic Performance Limited is. But looking at the relative pageviews of the articles, as well as the disambiguation page see chart at [1]), it looks like it's set correctly now.

That being said, if you strongly think it should be renamed, start a requested move. I'll disagree, but if enough people think you're correct, that's the way it will go. TJRC (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, for the record this is not an intentional disruptive move. The acronym "PPL" is what the Company is most Commonly Known as (and I am attempting to name the page as per Wikipedia guidelines on page naming) 110,000 members and the 100,000's of UK fee payers know "Phonographic Performance Limited" as "PPL" - and they are a "Music Copyright Collective Society" it is of course not an intention to move this page disruptively. My intention is is ensure correct and factual data is input on Wiki, nothing more. I've been editing for a short time and I'm unsure how to Request a Move I actually thought this was initiated via the move itself. One thing that I am 100% certain of is the Commonly Known name for Phonographic Performance Limited is "PPL" and this should be in the title of any page on Wikipedia for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ888kmg (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It was an intentional move, and it was a disruptive move. The correct process was explained to you above, and you chose to ignore that and do the same sort of move again. So from here, it sure looks like an intentional disruptive move.

Since you've been editing a short time, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your assurance that you are not being deliberately malicious. But by the same token, since you've been editing for only a short time, you should hold up on going whole-hog into processes that you don't understand and where you've been cautioned by more experienced editors. No one wants to go in and have to clean up after you because you're new and won't follow guidance. TJRC (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Registration requirement for films published prior to 1978 & reversion of edit on 1973 film

Requesting a clarification on the stated basis for reversion of edit on Invasion of the Bee Girls (1973) and List of films in the public domain in the United States, which was "registration (of initial 28-year term) was not required; may not have been renewed, and if that's the case it would indeed be PD; but for lack of renewal, not for lack of registration." While that is true under current law, as noted in the U.S.Copyright Office Circular 45 Copyright Registration of Motion Pictures on page 4 states that motion pictures published prior to 1978 had a manditory registration during the initial 28 year period. Also, while the IMDb, Internet Archive, and the wikipedia article state that the film is in the public domain, the AFI Catalog lists the reason, that the film was not registered. Lastly, there is at least one other entry in the List of films in the public domain in the United States with "not registered for copyright", the 1959 Last Clear Chance, that article discusses its public domain status due to failure to register. Lastly, perhaps the commons image needs a better / correct license rather than a violation of copyright claim. Thanks. Deanlaw (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deanlaw: see detail at Talk:Invasion of the Bee Girls. I don't think Circular 45 says what you think it does; you may be confusing deposit and registration, but I discuss that on the talk page. I suggest we conduct the conversation on the article talk page, rather than split between here and there.

I suspect Last Clear Chance is wrong, too, unless by registration, it refers to failure to register a renewal term (that was an expanded use of the term "register" under the 1976 Act, see the definition of "registered" in 17 U.S.C. § 101; I don't think it was used that way under the 1909, but to tell you the truth, I have not delved into it). The cite for LCC is a book I have no access to, so I have no way of telling whether the book is in error (it's not a book on copyright, and could easily be in error outside its field of expertise) or another misinterpretation by a Wikipedia editor. TJRC (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deanlaw: just a follow-up; the entry for Last Clear Chance is wrong, too. The cited source can be seen here. In that book, Prelinger lists the copyright registration status for films where he has been able to determine it. For LCC he writes "Copyright not registered". Prelinger does not say that the film is in the public domain because it was not registered; that appears to be someone's incorrect WP:SYNTH based on a misunderstanding of copyright law.

I suspect that LCC is indeed public domain, but not because of lack of registration. If the copyright owner was so unconcerned with copyright that they didn't bother to register it (and it's a railroad safety film, so that's unsurprising) they likely would not have bothered to renew it when it came due in 1987; and because the renewal deadline came before the Copyright Renewal Act's amendment took affect in 1992, such a lack of renewal would have put it into the public domain.

But confirming that would require a search of the Copyright office renewal records around 1987, and would be WP:OR in any event. TJRC (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Removing Tonya Harding info

Hello! I wanted to remove an addition to the Tonya Harding page that was clearly an add. The addition of the Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan Museum doesn't seem relevant to Tonya Harding herself, the description includes two names of the people who started it, however the "museum" has now turned into a pop culture museum. It's uncomfortable seeing these people promote on Tonya Hardings page, as their names are not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.232.212.158 (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it as promotional; it does have a cite to NPR as news. But I can see reasonable minds differing on that.

But that wasn't clear from your edits, though. You also removed the general statement of the cult following, well-referenced in Vogue. And you didn't provide any clue as to what you were doing in your edit summary, so it looked more like an act of random deletion. TJRC (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

White Christmas

Rosemary Clooneys version of White Christmas complete with the verse was played on BBC1 and 2 with Testcard F and Ceefax Pages from 1976-1995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.230.86 (talk) 00:17, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

Please don't add it to the article unless you have a published third-party reliable source; see the links I left on your talk page. For one thing, we don't rely on individual editors' memories or original research. For another thing, if no published source has deemed it sufficiently significant to mention, Wikipedia is not the place to do so for the first time. TJRC (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

error in citation re page numbers

Hi TJRC Thanks for your responses to my edits of the page for David Warren inventor. The reference to the history by Philip Heath should be for page 284 only. I misinterpreted the field titled "pages" as referring to the number of pages in the volume. I'm not sure where to go to fix this - can i get back to the Reference form? ArchivesTGSNSW (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@ArchivesTGSNSW:, don't worry about it, I've patched it up: [2]. Let me know if it doesn't look good to you now. (I also moved the BBC reference closer to the Launceston mention, since that's the only one supported in the BBC article.) Thanks for the updates! TJRC (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Proper citations, George Stinney

TJRC,

Hey, I’m new to wiki editing and appreciate constructive input. I am admittedly confused why you reverted my edits, you noted a lacked a proper citation, which may have been the case but my citation was a link to Cornell law school of the relevant SCOTUS ruling itself? Under Powell vs Alabama Stinney should have been afforded qualified counsel with adequate time to prepare-which he did not receive. No matter what I feel my edits did need some re-wording, but other than the SC case the rest of my edits were purely structural, I did not add new information. OgamD218 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@OgamD218:, no problem; I tried to provide the basis for the revert there, it's hard to fit a lot into the edit summary. Basically, there are two issues: original research and lack of sourcing (which is actually my own error, see below).

Let's do OR first. In this set of two edits, you've added your own legal analysis of the law as it relates to the Stinney case. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that analysis as such, but Wikipedia is not the place to add it. What you've done is made your own observations about the law, and published it in Wikipedia. That's the essence of original research, which is not allowed. The WP:SYNTH section of the WP:OR policy is on-point here.

Now, if there is a third party published reference that is making the same points you make in your edit, the text itself would be an acceptable addition, but pointing to the third-party reference as the source; not the primary reference of the case itself and your take on it. The pre-existing parts of the article that you edited fall into this category. There's a discussion of Gideon v. Wainright, for example; but you don't have an editor adding their own opinion about how Gideon affects the Stinney case; they are citing to Lindsey Bever's article in the Washington post, which cites to Gideon.

I'm going to go mea culpa on your other edit. I read too quickly and thought that you were adding some unreferenced information about the trial attendance; but I can see that that wasn't the case, it was a rewording for flow. That is my error, for which I apologize; I'll reinstate that, and thanks for pointing it out. TJRC (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot TJRC, I think I understand now, for the most part at least. To be sure, it is an uncontested fact that the Scottsboro case guaranteed indigent capital defendants the right to qualified counsel with adequate time to prepare. In fact the case was very similar, 1930s Alabama tried to execute a group of innocent black teenagers for assaulting 2 white women. Since Stinney was not by any reasonable observation extended his rights from that case, could I update my edit but this time state the facts of Powell vs Alabama but not include the original language stating these rights should’ve been extended to Stinney since that is my independent legal analysis? OgamD218 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No. If an independent third-party source has not connected the dots in the context of the Stinney case, Wikipedia should not be doing so. It still comes down to you putting your analysis and observations of Powell -- facts or law -- into the article.

There are places on the Internet to do this -- you could start a blog, for example -- but Wikipedia is not that place. TJRC (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Alex Shibutani has an RFC

Alex Shibutani has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Just notifying you about an RfC that I opened that relates to a discussion you participated in about the Shibutani ice dance partners. Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed Anitra Ford edit

Removed Anitra Ford edit. I added “The Odd Couple” because I actually saw the episode that she was in and looked up her information. That show wasn’t listed in things she had done, so I added it. I didn’t think I had to include a source, since I watched it, and it can also be easily checked simply by going to IMDB.com. But here is the link just in case. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0285503/bio Also from Bing, https://www.bing.com/k/celebrities/anitra-ford/timeline. 73.39.220.131 (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC) SB

We can't rely on individual editor's recollections of what they've watched and seen; and IMDB cast lists is also user-generated like Wikipeda, so it's not a reliable source.

There is a source listed for the other roles. If it omitted the Odd Couple appearance, even if she were in it, the fact that a print discussion of her appearances did not include, and you know of no other source that mentions it, suggests it wasn't high-profile enough anyway, especially for the lede. TJRC (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC).

Well, I guess I’ll need to post a photo from the end credits of that episode. I gave you two sources. There is also this: https://www.tvmaze.com/episodes/344958/the-odd-couple-1x11-felix-is-missing

I’ll tune into the episode on Hulu and get a screen grab tomorrow. I’m not sure why this is an issue. 73.39.220.131 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)SB

Please don't. First, neither you not IMDb qualify as reliable sources. (Neither do I; it's nothing personal.) You might want to read the bit at WP:RS I pointed you to. So you in effect gave no sources that meet Wikipedia requirements; not two. TVMaze is not a reliable source, either; it's edited by its users, just like Wikipedia and IMDB: "TVmaze is a collaborative site, which can be edited by any registered user."

But more importantly, Wikipedia is not the place to post stuff you found out. A screengrab of credits from the show, for example, would be what we call original research.

Basically, whether something has been discussed in third-party published sources unrelated to the subject of the article ensures both that the information is verifiable and worth noting. Wikipedia does not aspire to being a site where information is being published for the first time. It's for digesting and summarizing information already published.

There are sites where observations that you personally make are appropriate to post; some non-Wikipedia wikis, for example; or you could start a blog. But Wikipedia is not that place. TJRC (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree

"Last time" litreally means most recent time, both are synomynous so in no way I changed the meaning of the article, Just search meaning of "Last time", I just prefer last time than most recent time and you just prefer the most recent time even though both are the same, anyway it depends on the opinions on people of how they wanna see something or write something. So that was indeed a minor edit, and you did a mistake calling me out, Anyway I forgive you, Nice talking to you thank you sir! Hope you treat your junior editors better from next time. :) Swtadi143 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand it's your preference. However "last" is also synonymous with "final". When you changed "the most recent time" to "the last time" you are introducing an ambiguous phrase, which could be read either as the most recent time or as the final time, only one of which is known to be correct. So your change is not an improvement to the article. Your preference for the ambiguous version is not relevant.

With respect to your claimed minor edit, you are simply wrong. Please read the WP:MINOR that you were pointed to, which explains what a minor edit is.

Thank you for your forgiveness, but no forgiveness is required. TJRC (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Also on that covid page

I clearly mentioned that was a obvious vandalism with no clear or reliable source. So ofcource I just undid and reverted the version because theres no reliable source so it does come on "minor edit". Swtadi143 (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No, that's simply incorrect. The edit was not vandalism. First, it was text cited to a WP:RS: usnews.com is the U.S. News and World Report, a recognized reliable source. The fact that it was not a WP:PRIMARY source does not change that. Second even in your edit summary you referred to the edit you were deleting as a "good faith edit "; it is disingenuous of you to now claim it was vandalism.

That edit decidedly did not qualify as a minor edit. Please read WP:MINOR to understand what does qualify before using the "minor edit" tick-box again. TJRC (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough re: Strange Advance

Not gonna argue with you about the wording on that part of the Strange Advance article. I mean, yeah, they did end up changing their band name due to the existence of a German band with the same name as their original band name, but it was most probably not due to legal action as was the case of the New Jersey New Wave band Smash Palace, which was actually forced to change their name from Quincy due to legal action from Quincy Jones. Cheers. 136.50.71.144 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Teresa Stanek Rea & John J. Doll reverts

Hi I'm confused by your many reverts of my edits to John J. Doll. In going through the list of those who served in the office, I had added little to Doll, for lack of worthy additions. His page had a Notability banner from 2015 attached by a user whose credentials looked impressive to me, and which, while searching for additions, appeared valid. I later attached the same tag to Teresa Stanek Rea, for whom search also yielded little else of note. Holding a public office, in itself, may not lend adequate notability beyond appearing on lists.

I get that you disagree with their notability, and that's fine, but I do not get at all why you chose to steamroller revert perfectly valid copyediting on Doll's page as well. I also disagree with a particular note you left on Doll's reverts: "later consultancy probably isn't even worth mentioning, but certainly not in the lede". Whatever the person currently does is worthy of a sentence, when their professional life is their notability, and current status generally precedes past in the lead... not the lede, which is a publishing term that describes nothing actually done on Wikipedia. (PS what lead? It's a stub.) 98.13.210.103 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally, the information about the person's notability is upfront. To the extent the info is "where-are-they-now?" type of info, it's arguably not mentioning, certainly not in the lead sentence. The lead sentence, and in larger articles, the lead section, is to convey to the reader what they likely want to know: Who is this person? And the answer to that is to convey the basis for their notability.

On this issue of the notability tags themselves: I think in both cases, the individuals are notable, for the reasons set out in the edit summary. If in either case you had started a discussion on the talk page, I would have joined it, but there wasn't much to add beyond what I had in the edit summaries in any event.

That being said, if you really believe they're not notable, you should feel free to start an AFD; and if the consensus is with you, the articles will be deleted. But having the notability tag hang around isn't the answer. TJRC (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

To reiterate: I get that you disagree with their notability, and that's fine, but I do not get at all why you chose to steamroller revert perfectly valid copyediting on Doll's page as well. Further, I would appreciate that being corrected. Echoing 98.13.210.103 (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, "steamrolling" is your term, not mine, and I don't agree with that characterization; your point was not missed, it simply is not accepted. Most of the edits you made were simply not improvements: the notability tag, the irrelevant consultancy in the first sentence, a misspelling introduction followed by its own correction. I view reverting that as cleanup, not steamrolling.

What is it that you believe you added of value that is not now in the article, exactly? TJRC (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Right back at you, Arbiter. "a misspelling introduction followed by its own correction" is only saying (trying to say?) that I'd previously corrected my own accidental paste before a save. (...if it's saying anything at all. Maybe you meant "a misspelling in the introduction"... cut/paste got your words, too? To err is human, to self-correct is to edit. To merely criticize is another thing.) Go ahead and expand the stub, and Rea's as well, and every other high-ranking civil servant stub with nothing particularly notable to add, with my blessing. 98.13.210.103 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, I gave my reasons for removing the notability tags, which seems to really be what you're hung up on. And again, my opinion is not the end-all: if you disagree, open an AFD. If the consensus is that you are right and I am wrong, and that Rea and Doll are not in fact notable, the articles will then be deleted. TJRC (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, you misread, or choose to misdirect from, the actual point. 98.13.210.103 (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Then I have no idea what you're looking for here. I've asked what you think was removed that ought to be in there now, and you haven't pointed to anything. If you're trying to convince me the individuals are not notable: we disagree, but I've told you how you can try to convince others you're right, via AFD. If you're trying to convince me that an article should lead with the less important material, I disagree with that to, but as always, you can bring it up on the talk page if you really believe that. But other than that I have no clue why you're continuing to post here. TJRC (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)