User talk:TJRC/Archive6

Commonwealth realm

Not to gripe, but are pipe-links really that bad? GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There really is a good discussion at WP:NOTBROKEN, where I pointed. They don't do any good, and they make an article harder to read in source, among other things. In sum, it doesn't help; and hurts a little. Is there any particular reason you want to do this? I don't see anything different about this article that suggests it should not follow editing guidelines. TJRC (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look good, linking to 2 articles next to each other - [Pope] [Leo X]. Thefore I combined them as [Pope Leo X]. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, please don't. Let's stick to the guidelines, okay? TJRC (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, scratch that last comment; I misunderstood (and undid my own resulting edit). I still think it's probably worth linking Pope, but that's a judgment call. TJRC (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Orpheus Amulet

Hi, I appreciate your attempts to be even-handed on this, but I don't agree with your approach. Firstly, Wikipedia policy is clearly that self-published fringe sources are unacceptable - and I have provided good, acceptable sources for the alternative view. BRD does not trump good sourcing rules, as far as I can see. Secondly, if you look at the history of this dispute you will see that at least 4 different editors have put the mainstream view and only one is supporting the inclusion of the item, on the other hand. So insofar as there is a consensus it is clearly against inclusion.

I have part-reverted my 2 edits today but I propose to reinstall my last one unless the single editor in favour of this can come up with a better citation very quickly.

Sorry to be so abrupt here - I am sure we are on the same side on this - but I am very pressed for time and really should be doing other things. --Rbreen (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a procedural point: you should discuss on the talk page when you're making a disputed edit, and this one has a history. That's it. My take? You're probably right. Why don't you make your point on the talk page? That's what it's for. TJRC (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

IBM Talk archive

Hi TJRC, I find it complicated to carry on a conversation on two separate pages, so I've responded on my Talk page to your message concerning your recent undo of my undo. Please read it as friendly in tone (with a New Zealand accent). Koro Neil (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestive dialogue

I've closed the RfD as convert to a DAB page. You indicated that you were interested in doing that, so I figured I'd notify you that it's all set. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done; thanks. TJRC (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox snack

Please don't nominate this for G4 speedy; that's only applicable when the current content is the same as the deleted content, so a redirect doesn't qualify for G4 when the previous deletion was that of a template. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I put the explanation on the talk page, because it wasn't obvious; but I'll take it to XFD. TJRC (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Epicenter

Thanks for seeing that erroneous change I made. I was watching out for quotations (as you will see from some of the other changes I made) but this one slipped through. Imc (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.137 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dwyer

The reason I want the header left as-is, is so that the OP's attitude is clearly on display. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As you wish. For what it's worth, I do think that he has a good point and if there actually were an alternate image available, that would be a better photo to use in the infobox; with this photo moved to the suicide section. But not unless/until that photo is available, and not deleted in its entirety in any case. TJRC (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, he alleged that he had such an image, but he didn't post it. I agree that a neutral image would be better for the infobox. But until he makes good on his promise to supply such an image, that's the best we've got. And, frankly, no one outside of his political or family circles likely would remember this guy if it wasn't for his dramatic, public suicide. I did see that there was a normal portrait on findagrave, but I'm not keen on ripping that one off. P.S. I wonder if you've ever seen the uncensored video clip. It's grim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I'm right there with you. I also had initially thought that the only basis for notability was the suicide; but there are a surprising number of Pennsylvania Treasurers with articles.

I've seen the video; I don't care to see it again. While it's not as bad as the Daniel Pearl one, which still gives me the willies; it's bad enough. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen the Pearl video. I was watching a clip of Vince D'Onofrio's final scene in Full Metal Jacket, and it could have been a carbon copy of the Dwyer video - except it was clearly fake, for gory reasons I can skip here. The findagrave entry for Dwyer is here:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And having just skimmed the article to refresh my memory, I think I'll skip the Pearl video. The Buddhist monk who burned himself in Vietnam, and Dwyer, both did themselves in voluntarily. That's different from a "snuff" film such as the Pearl video presumably would be. What savages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I saw the Pearl video shortly after the event. Somewhere or other a link to the video was posted, and I couldn't help myself. It's as hideous as you no doubt imagine.

I did enjoy Full Metal Jacket, though, like every Kubrick film I've ever seen (well, maybe not Eyes Wide Shut). It always struck me as almost being two one-hour films; each of two portions -- basic training and in-country -- stand alone well on their own; but much better combined. TJRC (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Kubrick was certainly a unique character, and while his films might be uneven, or sometimes questionable as entertainment, they always generated a good deal of discussion. I realized in writing here, that the Dwyer incident and the "Gomer Pyle" incident both came in 1987. As I recall, Platoon (which had come out in late 1986) kind of overshadowed Full Metal Jacket, being the same general theme. It was funny hearing Hartman in FMJ invoke the same "steers and queers" line that had been spoken by Louis Gossett in Officer and a Gentleman. However, I read somewhere that Ermey was an advisor on Officer, so that might have been his line. Gossett made a better drill sergeant on-screen, I think, because he seemed realistic, while Ermey was right on the edge of being cartoonish. Not that I would have wanted to have to deal with either one of them. Getting a bit off-track here. Sorry. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed the main section heading to neutral terms posted earlier by yourself and another editor, and retained the OP's stupid comment as a sub-heading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates

Thanks for catching what was indeed a good-faith edit on my part. I was surprised when the link didn't work for me, as NR usually does a pretty good job with its archives. As you said, it must have just been a hiccup on my part or theirs. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Bowie Bonds

Hi TJRC, I recently changed Prudential plc to Prudential Financial on the Bowie Bonds page. Apologies for changing without citing the source. I have confirmation from Prudential Financial that it was them and not Prudential plc. I could not find out where the original source came from in any of the articles. Can you please advise me of the best way forward? Should I ask Prudential Financial in America to change this rather than me? Debbie Crowley (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi TJRC, on further investigation the reference to the statement that Prudential Insurance Company ("PIC") bought the bonds (note 1) is the Eastside Journal of 15 February 1997. Wikipedia have then cross referenced PIC to plc instead of Prudential Financial Insurance.

Can I draw your attention to the fact that the ultimate holding company of PIC is PFI not Prudential plc. You can find this information at www.prudential.com.

I do need to get this changed to Prudential Financial as it is currently incorrect. Debbie Crowley (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi TRJC, I now have the references.

Can you please change this article? The article should read: 'Issued in 1997, the bonds were bought for US$55 million by the Prudential Insurance Company of America'.

The references are:

http://bonds.about.com/od/buyingbonds/a/BowieBond.htm http://www.pullmanco.com/article118.htm

Please let me know if you are able to now update this article? Debbie Crowley (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, first, let me apologize for not responding to your comment. I just had a short vacation, and between preparing to go, going, and than catching up on work when I returned, I let this slip throgh the cracks. I saw the update you made today, and it looks perfect. Thanks for taking the time to locate and cite a reliable source. TJRC (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunnyvale

Can you do me a favor and step into the most recent Sunnyvale edit issue? The guy is pushing back, and I don't think he'll accept further pushback just from me. Jokeboy (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I hereby award TJRC this Barnstar for their insights and work at AFD Shakehandsman (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hart's Location, New Hampshire

None of the three citations included in the Federal elections section support your claim of the "town's reputation as belwether". Without a citation, the section fails notability, does not fall within Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Government and is most likely Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. It has an arbitrary start date, but worse, has no logical end, and within a decade or two would consume a huge portion of the page. It should be removed, or at least turned into it's own page (but I doubt it would meet notability) Cheers, Dkriegls (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for advice re quote

Thanks TJRC for your advice re the problem with the quote. I have put a response on my Talk page GrahamGreenleaf (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Format corrections at Sarah Chang

If you would have been paying attention, I was not the one to add the "trivia" as you sarcastically put it (diff here); also, I was not the one who wrote the accompanying text about tweeting. I demand an apology for your rudeness, when all I was doing was reformatting the previous editor's badly inserted BARE URL's. I took the flak for User:Grashazk. When you did the roll-back that you had intended, you could have added -- "Didn't mean to target Skol_fir for this" or something to that effect. It is a matter of courtesy to admit your mistakes, instead of leaving others to assume the worst intentions. --Skol fir (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

First, sorry about the erroneous revert. Looking at the cumulative changes, it had appeared that all the intervening edits were yours, and I missed the one by the first editor. Also, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by my not acknowledging you when I corrected that. TJRC (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It was not my feelings that were hurt. I was unjustly blamed for "trivia" and making a false claim about the role of "tweeting." That was what bothered me, and the fact that you did not catch yourself when you realized that you had picked on the wrong person. I don't like to be wrongly accused. That's all. Don't forget that even edit summaries are permanent and anyone looking at the history of this page will think I was a klutz. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Talk:The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald

There was nothing legitimate about the talk page comments I removed. Those comments were full of personal attacks upon me by an anonymous user who has a hard time editing without making everything personal. The purpose of the talk page is to facilitate constructive dialogue toward improving the article, not impugning the motives or character of other editors. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Diana Yukawa Change

Hello TJRC. You have reverted the edits i made to Diana Yukawa's page but these were simply factual changes, not promotional as you state. As Diana's manager these amendments were correct. Please can you undo your revert and then I am happy to make the small changes that you feel are promtional... thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.136.96 (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. The first of your edits [2] was factual and sourced, with only a little hype, and was retained.

Your second edit [3] was almost entirely puffery and promotion. "Diana has lead an extraordinary life"; " revolutionary sound"; "cutting edge, innovative, modern sound"; "uses together effortlessly to craft original and powerful pieces of music capable of fitting a complete range of briefs"; "her fascinating heritage and life story", etc. This is, of course, the sort of promotional material a publicity-seeking manager is expected to produce for his or her clients, but Wikipedia is not the platform for it. Please see WP:NOTPROMOTION.

In addition, as Yukawa's manager, you have an obvious conflict of interest between your representation of Yukawa and Wikipedia's aim to have a neutral-POV article on her, so please read WP:COI (or the plain and simple conflict of interest guide) and take particular care to comply with it. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

64.228.156.103

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Assistance with Bloomberg Law

Hi-there. I have been working on the Bloomberg Law article, which is currently lacking any major information or citation. After seeking help through various WikiProjects without luck, I wanted to approach you about possibly taking a look at my draft to be uploaded to the current article because I have seen that you are active with other law related articles. I want to note that I do some work for Bloomberg and have openly acknowledged my conflict of interest. Any help would be greatly appreciated. My draft can be found here. Thank you --RivBitz (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but between crushing workload and an upcoming vacation, I do not anticipate doing much in Wikipedia for the next month or so. You'd likely be better served by asking someone else. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for getting back to me and enjoy your vacation! --RivBitz (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I recently ran an experiment deleting 100 random external links. Only 3 were reverted; you were one of the 3. Well done! --Gwern (contribs) 19:58 30 May 2012 (GMT) 19:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Judiciary Act of 1891, and Wong Kim Ark

Hi. This may not really make a big difference, but I thought you might want to know why the Judiciary Act of 1891 was included as a "See also" link in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. When the WKA article was being considered for Featured Article, someone questioned why the article said the case had been "appealed" to the Supreme Court, instead of being taken via a writ of certiorari. The reason appears to have been that when a lower court decision dealt with a constitutional issue (including a conflict between the Constitution and federal or state law), the Judiciary Act of 1891 said the losing side had a right to appeal directly and have the case heard by the Supreme Court. One FA reviewer really wanted a source for this — but there simply weren't any secondary sources to be found, and our interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1891 would of course had been original research. The compromise we reached in the end was to stick a link to the act in the "See also" section of the article; this clearly turned out to be too subtle, as your removal of said link illustrates. :-) I'm not sure there is any better way of dealing with this procedural point — or, for that matter, if it really needs to be dealt with at all (since I'm sure no one is going to raise it again now). If anyone does try to "correct" the article to say that it reached SCOTUS via certiorari as opposed to a direct appeal, I'll just point to the text of the opinion, which literally says the case was "appealed". Anyway, just so you'll know the background here. — Richwales 23:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation; that's a pretty funky compromise. I think it's best left out, and the reference you already have in the article pretty clearly states it was an appeal; it doesn't get much more authoritative than the text of the case itself; and its caption (APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA). But I won't object if it gets put back in (although it really doesn't meet the goal of explaining why there was a direct appeal). TJRC (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Oops. Yup. You're right. All this Lance craziness has me disoriented. I don't know if I'm on the talk page or the article. Good catch. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yum, pie! thanks. I'm steering clear of most editing on these, although I've reverted a few edits on some TdF articles where a well-meaning IP editor has struck through Armstrong's name; or promoted the second-comer to winner. One way or the other, the dust will settle in a week or two; no need to rush, is my feeling. TJRC (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Update section

Why did you change the text of the documentation of {{Update}} in this edit? The |type= parameter wasn't working? Debresser (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Right. Example here. When I checked the template's doc and talk page I noted the Feb 2012 advice "Use {{update section}} instead." If that's incorrect, and the section parameter can be made to work, please feel free to revert my edit when it works. TJRC (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But this example shows it works! It says "This article is outdated. Please update this section to reflect recent events or newly available information." Debresser (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I'd expected it to say "This article is outdated..." I'll revise my edit, but personally continue using {{update section}}, whose wording is, I think, better. TJRC (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. We could be bold and remove the type=section from the code, and replace its instances by Template:Update section. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right, but my template-coding skills aren't up to the task. TJRC (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If you remind me in another 2 weeks, I'll do that. I'll be a bit busy till then. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see this proposal. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

File rename of Adam Joseph Live At Cincinnati Pride 2010.png

Thank you for catching and correcting that error. It was very much appreciated. Sysmithfan (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to. TJRC (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Santa Cristo

Hi TJC, you probably guesed I am a newbie to Wikipedia and so I apologise if I unintentionally infringed promotional guidelines- rules when posting to [[4]]. However I would like to make two points:

1. I thought what I wrote was neutral in tone and therefore that seems to be the key point when posting material to which one has a connection. isn't it? Perhaps it wasn't neutral enough. If so I apologise. I certainly did not intend to "sell it". After all this is a free, unfunded and not for sale piece of art so I don't stand to gain financially whatever.

2. I believe it is relevant and of interest to people studying this subject to be aware of www.santacristo.org I really have zero objection to an edit, even a brutal one that makes it short as you like, but it does not seem to serve the reader to remove all mention of something that is obviously relevant.

So please reconsider and I ask you to include some mention however large/small. For your reference there are supporting photos available if you feel one would be appropriate. I note that there are some on the page already. If you have a faceboook account you can see photos here

All the best

Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robingurney (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It isn't merely an issue of neutrality. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, documenting persons, things and subjects of notability. The article Crucifixion in the arts is not intended to exhaustively capture every reference to crucifixion in the arts; only those that have attained a degree of notability. There's no indication that your art project has sufficient notability to merit a discussion in the article.

With respect to neutrality and WP:COI, financial benefit is not the only consideration. Publicity (which is what I think you're looking for with this edit) is also part of it. In general, you should avoid making any edits that implicate WP:COI, as yours did. If you believe that your art piece is of sufficient notability to be worth a mention, discuss it on Talk:Crucifixion in the arts and see whether an editor without your bias agrees with you.

As an aside, my Wikipedia ID is TJRC, not TJC. I see there is also a TJC, but I have no relation to him or her. TJRC (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

TJRC (sorry for mistyping the the wrong handle) All makes sense of course and yes I am biased but then again I see the reaction of people and can only imagine the piece's notability will grow. I guess its too much to expect an editor to judge for inclusion based on artistic merit rather than notability. C'est la vie. Understand about COI. So in the words of the immortal Arnie, "I'll be back" TO Talk:Crucifixion in the arts when notability has reached further. Thanks for clarifying the position and excuse my clumsy but well-intentioned attempt at inclusion. Merry Christmas Robin Robingurney (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Orphan works in the United States. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• The reference was retained, in reference #5. The sentence for ref #5 was a direct link to the PDF so I simply turned it into a reference instead. Then I noticed the same material was referenced, albeit less completely, in the first sentence. According to the MOS (WP:LEADCITE), the lead shouldn't really be referenced (because the material will appear again in the article) and since the reference was simply for the definition of the term orphan work, it didn't seem to need any citation, especially in a lead section. I hope this clarifies. [+][dead.henry] (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Can you please explain why the quotation marks were replaced around the phrase orphan work. It's a standard, valid term; why the hedging? Thank you. [+][dead.henry] (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am AGF but have noticed several other instances where the author links directly from the article to external sources. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Links (see external links). You probably missed those. I'll leave it to another more-seasoned wikipedian to correct them. Thank you.

• I don't have time for this. Thank you for showing me how I'm wasting my time trying to raise the bar of WP. Good luck writing your stubs. Bye WP. Look for my work to appear as references in peer-reviewed journals.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadhenry (talk • contribs) 17:22, October 25, 2012‎

I was referring to the edit removing the reference in the lede here; but as I look closer, you weren't deletinga dead link. I've backed out my erroneous edit, and limited it to correcting the deletion of the reference. I'm sorry you're so obviously worked up about this. Whether you decide to stay or leave Wikipedia, I wish you well. TJRC (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Nice work in rewriting the Copeland "Anti-kickback" Act article, and for converting the page to an encyclopedic entry. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

HEY, thanks! ☺ TJRC (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice job on Copeland "Anti-kickback" Act. Keep up the good work! Buggie111 (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Southland Corp. v. Keating

• Per WP:MOSINTRO: Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article. This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article..

• Familiarity with who she is notwithstanding, I believe that enough people understand that "Sandra" is a woman's name that it would be obvious who "she" was if all the other names proximally mentioned are commonly understood as men's names ("William", "Clarence")

• I don't see anything at WP:W2W that would support a contention that describing someone a "scholar" is POV. You'll have to provide more support for this if you want me to fix this.

Please direct your responses to my talk page (Or here with a {{talkback}} there if you'd rather keep it all in one place). Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk page at Han-na Chang

Please do not randomly revert corrections of grammar unless you yourself are an expert in English and know better: "This does not say that she has officially accepted the position" happens to be correct, and you reverted it back to the wrong version! I assume that you were not paying attention or were assuming that anonymous IP's are idiots! Either way, there is no excuse for reverting without reason.

BTW, I was the anonymous editor (with such a minor correction, I chose not to sign in from my smartphone), so I was justified in correcting my own grammar! That nullifies your reference to WP:TPO --Skol fir (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am an expert in English grammar, but that's beside the point. I was not correcting the grammar, I was reverting an edit made in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The edit correcting the grammar was in violation of talk page edit guidelines. One does not edit the comments of another editor to correct grammar. I reverted that edit in violation. Your "BTW" is not "BTW" at all. You're saying that you were correcting your own grammar, and that's fine. For further info, please see the guideline WP:TPO, which I referenced in my edit summary. TJRC (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I capitulate. My first reaction was premature, as you had every right to revert my edit, not realizing at the time that I was the anonymous editor. Sorry for the initial tirade. I should have read your guideline for other person's comments. I did, but not until I had vented. Oops! --Skol fir (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No biggie. Happy editing. TJRC (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)