User talk:TJ0513

Image copyright problem with Image:Belle_&_sebastian.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Belle_&_sebastian.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 08:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian Midget Fighting League (hoax)

Please include notability info for the article you created, Cambodian Midget Fighting League (hoax). I am considering nominating it for deletion, but am not sure whether it is not notable. Not even sure which criterion applies. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the scope of world history it's probably not that important, and was really just a pop culture thing making the rounds on the internet...I couldn't say how widely it circulated, and it could very well be that in five years no one remembers about it...we'll see if anyone has anything to add...in the end, let the wikipedians deciede, and I will accept their decision. TJ0513 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Columbus

Thanks for your recent edit to the Knights of Columbus article! I'm trying to take it to featured article status, so any help you can offer would be great. Its currently undergoing a peer review. Thanks again! Briancua 15:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was correct the spelling of the word "Connecticut"...unrelatedly, I have attended a few KoC meetings (a few years ago), and was less than impressed... TJ0513 12:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TJ

I'm pretty new at this. Thanks for your suggestions. I'll work on it. Noroton 02:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits

Nice edits to Alexander Rummler. It's always great to see someone else expanding an article that's been unedited for months. Cheers! --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shucks, just tryin' to add a bit of color to a little corner of the Internet. Thanks! I hope to continue to improve it! TJ0513 01:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Norwalk, Connecticut

Hi; I've endorsed this revision of this page. Note that I don't have a particularly strong feeling one way or another; I simply made a call and there it is. I don't assert any particular authority to freeze the page at any moment. Indeed, I'm sure this article can be further improved. I just have to question whether you two can do so, right at the moment. Please lend me your ears for a bit while I comment.

Noroton (talk · contribs) and TJ0513 (talk · contribs), you seem to be in the middle of an edit war. Page history does not indicate any blatant 3RR violation and, if you think you're not edit warring, this is probably why. Let me just suggest that edit wars come in all shapes and sizes; 3RR only forbids one particular kind. Other edit wars are also frowned upon and occasionally grounds for sanctions. The general principle is discuss, don't revert. This theme runs through many of our policies.

My suggestion is that you both take a break from this particular page. I don't particularly care if my edit stands or if the very next editor who comes along reverts it -- just so long as it's not one of you guys. Let a few other guys get in their licks; see which way the wind blows. You may be surprised at what the rest of the community has to say. Give it a month. Remember, all versions are safely stored in page history; there is no emergency, nothing will be lost. You've both commented on talk extensively so other editors will be aware of the controversy. No problem!

There are many outstanding tasks around here; no shortage of work to be done. Build up some good karma and I'm wiling to bet that in a month from now, you'll both find your concerns fully addressed. If there's any way I can possibly help, just ask.

I'd like to repeat that I'm totally uninvolved in this issue; I've never even been to Connecticut, despite having lived many years in the Rust Belt. I don't even particularly worry that the project will fall down if you fight over this article. But I hope I'm able to help preserve two valuable contributors to the project; this I care about a great deal. Thank you. John Reid 08:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, but I don't think minds are going to be changed in a month's time. I sort of tried my best to get other voices in there, by listing for a Wikipedia:Third opinion, but that didn't seem to work. I'd love to see more people opine, though unfortunately I'm not sure they'll be finding their way to this article. TJ0513 01:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Request

Hello, I've looked over the relevant talk pages, and beyond taking a well-advised break from the issue, if/when you decide to continue this I recommend proposing informal mediation through WP:MEDCAB. Though some of your personal comments to Noroton, such as You're crazy, may be seen as out of line of WP:NPA, I don't think the situation necessarily calls for someone to act for you in an advocacy capacity. However, I would be willing to help mediate a resolution if you and Noroton decide to go that route. The discussion and attempt at compromise you've tried up to the personal attacks started was already pretty good though, and starting a mediation process might just emulate what you've already gone through. Anyway, please let me know at your leisure what issues you still have with the article as it stands and I will try to advise what WP:DR steps may or may not be appropriate at this point or some point in the future.--Amerique 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said "crazy" after I was called "creepy", or rather my actions were regarding the "something" that I was doing. That is crazy. If there's nothing that can be done then there's nothing that can be done; I went through the means, and I guess a stubborn person can block all moves. TJ0513 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I hope your future collaborations will be more pleasant. Best Regards,--Amerique 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your last message on your AMA case page Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/October_2006/TJ0513.--Amerique 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry so late in replying, the best way to get ahold of me is to leave a message on my talk page and I will know right away. From what I understand as of a week or so ago, what you would like to do is propose, through an RFC, the elimination of the 9-11 victims reference from these articles, as it is of at best tangential interest to the subject matter, correct? Thank you for your patience.--Amerique ^dialectics 06:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My to-do list

Hey, thanks for dropping me a line. I haven't been involved as of late as much as I'd hoped. My pages are out of date, and so please don't feel bad for creating any article (I'd much rather someone else start it, and me add to it, than have nowhere to start.) I appreciate the tip, however, and look foreward to working with you on it. Thanks, Mysekurity 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Brien McMahon

Hi TJ:

Can you please add your citations to the actual article, instead of the talk page. You might want to consult WP:Citing sources.

Thanks, WVhybrid 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it my best, added the section, and removed the tag. TJ0513 13:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Norwalk edit

What was the reason for removing a footnote? There was nothing in the edit summary either. I checked and the link is still good, so I restored the footnote. Here's the diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Norwalk%2C_Connecticut&diff=144204323&oldid=143410225

Noroton 23:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out what you're talking about...in the diff you sent me, the footnote is still there, I removed the sentence: "A loud group of men "came rumbling upstairs to go to bed in the next room", tipsy or drunk, he supposed. The next morning he traveled further west" because I believe that a loud group of drunk men coming up the stairs is non-notable in Norwalk's history. TJ0513 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Now I see. Sorry. How was the sentence you removed any more or less notable than the rest of the section? Noroton 01:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer on your talk page... TJ0513 03:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whole section I put in is superfluous and will eventually be compressed and probably deleted when we get more and better information on Norwalk history to put in there. I figured it was something that would be interesting for now. I thought the drunks were about as telling as the rest of it -- it all gives a quick sketch of what the town was like back then. Where are you getting your information from? And can you put in the footnotes when you insert it? If you're not sure of the format, just type in the same kind of information you see in other footnotes and if you want help, I can look over it and do whatever stylistic changes might be necessary. I'm sure your sources are reliable, so let's add them.Noroton 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(the Ray book....) TJ0513 03:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(redent)I'd prefer to have individual footnotes, and anyway we're supposed to follow whatever overall referencing style is used already in an article. Tell you what, if you simply type the overall footnote in (last name, first name and last name, first name, full exact title, publisher, year, ISBN number if you have it) and put it in the references section, or if you prefer on the talk page or even my talk page, I'd be happy to format it correctly and insert the footnote in the spot highest on the page where it applies (that is, the first spot where you took info from the book). In fact, tell me the first two spots. The second spot down that I footnote you can just copy and paste to the end of whatever other paragraphs or parts of paragraphs where the book applies. Forget about pages, they aren't necessary. How's that sound? Tell me whenever you're ready. Noroton 03:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC) (redent) What do you think about Norwalk Islands#Notes? Again, we can use the same exact footnote each time information from it is cited. The reason I like it is because it allows readers to refer back to the exact source. Years from now, we may have dozens of sources in the article, but if the footnotes point to the exact one, then your (and my) information is less likely to be thrown out by some editor who doubts whether or not some point was accurate or true. Again, I'm happy to do the grunt work (it's a little typing and mostly copying and pasting). I think aesthetically it's not as pleasing to have all those footnotes (and they're kind of like a porcupine in the list of small islands right now at Norwalk Islands, but as information is added over time, they don't look as bad (and we can even fix them on the Islands list by replacing them with some footnoted statement up top such as "The archipelago is also made up of these smaller islands: [footnote here]"). I think a footnote at the bottom of a paragraph isn't too bad, aesthetically. What do you think?Noroton 14:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on all those additions to the history article. I don't have time to read it all, but I definietly will. What I've looked at so far is fantastic! Noroton 18:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel strongly about it, let's do it your way. Please take a look at Wikipedia style guidelines for referencing/footnotes first (they allow several formats, including the one you want). I do think it's more confusing in the long run to do it your way, but frankly, I respect all the work you've done on the page and I think the decision on that score should be up to you as the editor most interested. It's not really WP:OWN, just the best division of labor. Noroton 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think given my schedule I'll only be able to be a weekend warrior wikipedian...at most. Sorry so long for getting back to this. I certainly don't want to be the one that decides how the formatting is done. What I will do is review some other "History of {insert town name here}" articles and see how formatting has been done there. TJ0513 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pictures

Hi,

Thanks for the compliment about the pictures. When I was in SoNo I did take a picture of the mural, but I noticed that the artist had a copyright "C" in the lower righthand corner, and that kept me from wanting to put it up. If you're not concerned, go right ahead and post the pic, I certainly won't object. There's a mural depicting the lighthouse on Water Street facing north, and I'm not sure whether to put up that one either (no "copyright" notice there). Another solution might be to have a picture of both the mural, the little garden in front of it and the front of the building. The picture would then be of a prominent aspect of SoNo and might well be the kind of "iconic" picture that's best for the top of that page. (I'm beginning to suspect that I made a mistake in the "Main Street" postcard at the top of the SoNo page: I have to visit Main Avenue and Wall Street and see if it's not really a picture of that spot.)Ideally, I'd rather not have too many pics in "gallery" sections, but I'd rather have them than not have them. I think it's better to have them strewn in the article in bigger sizes, but the articles aren't that long (yet!), and picture sections are useful, I think. If you have a better picture of the same scene, feel free to substitute it for mine, even if it "orphans" mine. Noroton 19:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Belle & sebastian.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Belle & sebastian.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norwalk Wiki

Greetings, great work on Norwalk related stuff. I recently created the Norwalk Wiki for everything that would not otherwise be notable enough for Wikipedia. Its brand new, so we need to get the word out about it. I invite your correspondence. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Oysterdredging1.jpg

File:Oysterdredging1.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Oysterdredging1.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Oysterdredging1.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rummlerself1.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Rummlerself1.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Purchaseofnorwalk1.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Purchaseofnorwalk1.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:NorwalkSeal.PNG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NorwalkSeal.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of high school cohorts in popular culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of high school cohorts in popular culture 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/List of high school cohorts in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Pfcshea.gif

The file File:Pfcshea.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]