User talk:TJRC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.2 Case Names

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, lets try this again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, TJRC. You have new messages at [[User talk::meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Deletion of Draft:List of sex symbols|User talk::meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous]].
Message added 10:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You deserve one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI, . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article C/2007 K5 (Lovejoy) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C/2007 K5 (Lovejoy) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

Please refer to WP:GENDER. It states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solar eclipse of February 11, 1804 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of February 11, 1804 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article Universal dialectic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Spam bucket. Vandal bait. Not enough information to merge, and no obvious targets for a redirect. Delete and salt, please.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) Bearian (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Commas after state names in sentences is the way in Chicago, MLA, and AP. Saying it's 'unnecessary' to add them seems dubious to me. But whatever.

Chicago
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Commas/faq0041.html

MLA
https://style.mla.org/commas-place-names/#:~:text=The%20MLA%20Style%20Center&text=Unless%20a%20place%20name%20is,or%20state%20name%20is%20abbreviated.

AP
https://www.deanza.edu/communications/documents/ap_styleguide.pdf

Erik Kennedy (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected; not so much for these (many of these style guides are contrary to WP's own); but for MOS:GEOCOMMA, which is actually Wikipedia's own Manual of style. TJRC (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Your revert here deleted many entries that did have refs. As well as many appropriate copy edits. And perhaps you did not notice the edit summary with the edit you reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_University_at_Albany_people&diff=next&oldid=1272987907 2603:7000:2101:AA00:34FB:96:88B8:2C6D

Furthermore, I might note that you used tools here. To revert what was not vandalism. But did not leave an appropriate edits summary. Which might help others who edit that page see what was on your mind. H:FIES.

Cheers.--2603:7000:2101:AA00:34FB:96:88B8:2C6D (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It is way too much work to go through your lengthy edit and sift out the good entries from the bad. This is the second time you've tried to add unsourced material. The first revert should have made clear to you that you shouldn't do that.

your edit summary, making clear that you understood that you were wrongfully adding unsourced material, does not change that.

In a perfect world, I'd have time to go through and carefully clean up after you, but I don't. TJRC (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You finding it to be "way too much work" is not reason for you to delete RS-sourced text. There is simply no support for it. And that is what you have done with that edit. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:34FB:96:88B8:2C6D (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to re-add the sourced material. TJRC (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You miss the point. You had no right to delete RS-sourced material. You should therefore restore it. It's your burden to fix it, as your removal was improper.

And -- feel free to wait a week before deleting material you do not like. it is wp policy that how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. You did not for some reason delete the material that has been uncited for years, with editors having had the ability over the course of years to provide cites. You instead chose to delete material that had just been added that day -- not giving editors a reasonable opportunity to add RS refs. That is counterintuitive. It also does not help the project. It would be more helpful if you heeded the policy mention of sensitivity to how quickly the material should be removed. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:34FB:96:88B8:2C6D (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection to the older unsourced material being deleted, either. I'm holding the line on making the article worse, as your edits are doing.

It is not another editor's responsibility to sift through your edit and sort out the good from the bad. Yeah, if it was only one unsourced entry in a sea of otherwise good edits, I'd just excise the one. But your edit is a large one over the range of the article, homogenizedly mixing good and bad. Screw it, I'm not going to try to sort that out.

Summary: the article is already flagged as having sourcing problems. your edit made that problem worse. Your edit was therefor reverted. That's pretty much it. Please go ahead and make edits that improve the article, though. TJRC (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• It is your obligation not to delete proper RS-supported text. And that's what you have done. The rest of your edit is not your obligation - it is your choice - so that does not excuse you deleting proper RS-supported text.

Deleting proper RS-supported text is not allowed.

The older material is what was tagged. When tagging, that relates to the existing material. Not all material that is uncited need be tagged, as you know - good faith beliefs as to accuracy play a role. The material I added was not tagged; the old material was tagged.

And it is a**-backwards to delete material that editors have only had a few hours to consider providing refs. While you ignore - as you have, the material that was actually tagged. And has been so for years. Without editors providing refs.

Also, you have not indicated in your edit summary when removing material for lacking an inline citation that -- as required by wp policy -- you have a concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. Perhaps it is because you have not made that determination? I imagine that is possible. As the linked-to articles each have such refs, as one can plainly see.

Most of the material that you deleted has RS refs. Or is appropriate copy-editing.

Give me a week, and I will provide additional refs. But it's difficult to do it all at once. Please restore my last edit, which did add a good number of RS refs. Come back in a week. I'm not sure why you think there is an immediate deadline. There is none. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:608C:C62D:FDBC:52 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Great, make your edit in a week when you have refs, then. Thanks! TJRC (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll revert to make the first half of my edit now. And then complete it within the week. Hang tight. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:608C:C62D:FDBC:52 (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

"Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia". The link includes a photograph of his grave. This is why it was used. Rusted AutoParts 04:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes: it's fine to use as an EL. But it's not acceptable as a reference. TJRC (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

What's the point of the caveat about inclusion as an external link when the content the external link is being utilized for is being refused? Some random person isn't just saying he's there, there's photographic proof to support the inclusion of the category. Rusted AutoParts 04:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Can I restore the edits with this source to cite for interment, and keep the Find a Grave EL for photographic corroboration? Rusted AutoParts 04:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

That sure doesn't look like a reliable source either. Try to find a news report (I couldn't). TJRC (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask what makes it unreliable as a source? Rusted AutoParts 04:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like a self-published site, basically a one-man operation. I don't see any information about how he gets or vets his information, whether he has a reporting staff and how large. I don't see anything anywhere that cites to it as though it were authoritative or reliable; it has not established any reputation as being authoritative or reliable.

Why do you believe it is a reliable source? What do you see that suggests that? It looks like some guy on the web to me. TJRC (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Even if it were a one man operation, I am not seeing reason to believe what he is writing/reporting is in anyway incorrect, unsupported or dubious/biased/speculative. Photographic proof of the interments they’re listing is included to bolster the names listed. Considering the page is reflecting interments at a cemetery, they way one gets that information is by visiting the location in question. Hence why we have access to Newhart’s grave photo in the first place. Since it’s being forbidden to make use of the site that explicitly hosts the visual verification of interment, I don’t see what makes this website fundamentally unusable. It’s not a personal use blog, it’s not social media, or user generated content. It’s not making a dubious claim as we can corroborate the information with other means. Rusted AutoParts 16:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Go ask on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. TJRC (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maria Strong (attorney), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Strong (attorney) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I want to stand by my edit for now at least. I can't find any sources expressing the view that JD Vance was not Acting President for two minutes during the inauguration. I also can't see another plausible interpretation of the US constitution as applied to these facts. So my read is that this is the consensus view at least among lawyers who have given the matter any thought at all. I think it is mostly not being discussed precisely because it is not controversial, and also not consequential (Vance didn't actually use the power of the presidency during those two minutes). And since we have a table that purports to exhaustively list cases of acting presidents, it seems important to be accurate and include this one.

If you know of a source expressing a contrary view, I'd be very curious to see it. In this case, perhaps we could present this as a controversey? RiverOfRationality (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page and get consensus. This is one view by one not particularly notable law professor. It's been set out no where else. It's decidedly WP:FRINGE. TJRC (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

hi TJRC. The stand-alone list article of Yale Law School graduates consists almost entirely of individuals with their own Wikipedia articles (as a measure of notability, no doubt). I added year-of-graduation to a couple of individual listings, and added a new name (Frederick Wiseman) of a notable alum. You reverted those edits for lack of sourcing, noting that the list is already "poorly sourced." I think that is unproductive, as accuracy is not in doubt: the only "facts" to be sourced would be the fact of receiving a degree and the year of graduation, both of which are part of the linked biographical articles on the listed individuals, as with nearly all the other many individuals on the list with no source cited. At most, wouldn't a "citation needed" flag be warranted? I realize that the literal terms of the MOS on stand-alone lists calls for application of the standard sourcing policy, but isn't that rule honored more in the breach in the case of stand-alone lists of notable individuals withe their own articles, with no harm done for the reasons I already mentioned? PDGPA (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you recently undid my edition of the status of Trini Kwan from Power Rangers.

I know that it is about her character, not her actress.

And I updated Trini's status as "deceased" as her character dies in the movie Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: Once & Always. EBCHA (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

It's been 4 years since I started using this site. Yes, some of my initial behavior was influenced by me having previous experience with the Scratch Wiki, which likely made me start with unsourced edits here and create {{inappropriate}}. I even look back to some of my bizarre test edits. I have also, from the very beginning, made some positive contributions as well, a number of which could have been built upon. Unfortunately, template space isn't well-guarded like mainspace, so a user's first edit could be creating a new template. Instead of jumping to WP:CIR conclusions towards my beginning, you could have made a message like:

==August 2021==

Hello, I'm Faster than Thunder. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Glossary of Carnatic music, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Faster than Thunder. An edit that you recently made to Cartoon Network seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Template:Inappropriate, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use your sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Wikipedia is not censored, nor do we use disclaimers.

~~~~

Sorry, but these display my name because of how the templates work. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 15:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)