This is an archive of past discussions with User:TJRC. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

User talk:TJRC Archive 1: 2007 Archive 2: 2008 Archive 3: 2009 Archive 4: 2010 Archive 5: 2011 Archive 6: 2012 Archive 7: 2013 Archive 8: 2014 Archive 9: 2015 Archive 10: 2016 Archive 11: 2017 Archive 12: 2018 Archive 13: 2019 Archive 14: 2020

Dear TJRC

I am a sponsor and user of Wikipedia. Furthermore I am a founding member of the Henschel Quartett and in charge of its management. Thanks for coming back with informations after I entered Wiki as administrator. I have done so, because the Wiki info of my music ensemble Henschel Quartett needs urgent updates, e.g. regarding a new member.

Yesterday I updated the information about my ensemble Henschel Quartett in German and English. https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Quartett

! Updating the German version I did by mistake do it without loggin in. Now my IP address is public. Please delete and exchange by my new admin. contact, which I had used to update the English version ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Quartet )

My admin is: Henschel Büro [email protected]

THANKS !

Your message to "Henschel Büro" asks, if I am able to meet the Wiki standard when updating the Henschel Quartett, since I am close to the issue covered. I am close and therefore I am the one to know about necessary updates. In fact I or one of the other 3 founding members should have taken a closer look earlier.

1. We have a new member since January 5 2019. His name is Gregory Maytan. He replaces Catalin Desaga, who by mistake was listed (not by me) as a full member, which he was not. Catalin Desaga had never joined the "Henschel Quartett GbR" (structure of the Henschel Quartett as recognised by the state and tax authorities), however he had -as an interim member- played a number of concerts in between 2016 and 2018 after Daniel Bell had left (full member 2010-16). Such it will not be correct to state it the way it was. This is the background to the changes I took. Nobody else but the 3 founding members of our quartet is be able to check, if information is fully correct. If ex-members have to be listed at all it should happen down below and not in the intro, as done by most of the other string quartets at Wiki, if at all ex-members are being listed, which often is not the case. We do indeed prefer to skip this information, too. But if Wiki finds it necessary it will then be Markus Henschel (1994-2010), Daniel Bell (2010-2016), interim-member Catalin Desaga (2017-2018), Gregory Maytan (2019-).

2. None of the members approves of birthdays to be published (approval needed > data regulations). We never gave permission to publish birthday dates.

3. The Orlando prize win of 2015 was missing.

So as you can see, all the updates are down-to-fact and necessary. Don´t be puzzled by our own website to still state old information. Updates in process at the moment.

I am most grateful, that you give me the chance to actually talk to you about the changes necessary. I had tried to contact [email protected] as advised at a Wiki support page and have received a failure note.

Many thanks for your support!

Kind regards,

Monika Henschel

Henschel Büro (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Henschel Büro:, I'm sorry, I'm not an admin on either English nor German Wikipedia. I have left a message on the German Wikipedia relaying your request for help. You can see it here and if you like, add clarifications if I have misunderstood. I hope someone there can help you. TJRC (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for writing - you're correct that I should have included a citation. Fortunately, this gave me a chance to review the full Let It Be page, and I saw that the story of Wah-Wah was already there, so I added a citation to that section.

Whbjr (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank You! TJRC (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Just stole your "Periodic wikignoming" section for my own user page. Thanks for that! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. If JzG is edit warring, who is he edit warring with and wouldn’t that other editor also be edit warring? You’ve been here long enough to know. Moreover, when you template the regulars you can bet they have friends watching their talk pages who will be offended that you’re trying to teach grandma or grandpa how to suck eggs. So, please leave a thoughtful hand typed message in those situations and assume the other editor reasonably understands what they are doing. I’m not going to get involved in this dispute because I have worked for Kilpatrick Townsend many times as an expert witness, though I don’t know this particular lawyer. Just take my remarks as a word from the wise. Warm regards, Jehochman ^Talk 02:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

See the discussion on Talk:Paul Haughey. TJRC (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Your statement seems thorough. Because I am recused from this topic, I will refrain from commenting on the substance of the disagreement. Jehochman ^Talk 02:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for the feedback on editing pages with British English in comparison to American English. This is a note I will keep in mind when I continue editing on Wikipedia.

Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapp1003 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry for the edit on D. B. Cooper in popular culture, I somehow didn't notice that you'd already undone the previous edit. You're right, it's not worth including in the article. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm confused about why you've undid some of my revisions. I have replied to your message on my talk page. Nelson21101805 (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I've responded there. TJRC (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Since you identify as a lawyer and as a wikignome, I thought I would ask you why we don't have an infobox for lawyers. Also, based on a question that came up recently at Gloria Allred, which is better for the infobox: Loyola Marymount University (JD) or Loyola Law School (JD)? I'm not very savvy on infoboxes OR law. Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's much special about lawyers that they ought to have a specific infobox. It's just another profession. With judges, for example, you might have what courts they've been judge in and {{infobox judge}} (which is really {{infobox officeholder}}) takes care of that. Lawyers really don't have anything special that ought to be set apart in an infobox. Maybe particularly well-known cases; but that's handled quite adequately by the "known_for" parameter (see, e.g., F. Lee Bailey).

On the law school... I would tend to go with specifying the law school rather than the parent university. That makes sense to me for any specialized graduate school (such as medical school), too. Law schools, medical schools, graduate music schools, etc. are run with a high degree of autonomy and because of the specialization and the fact that there is in almost all cases a near-zero crossover of students, faculty and curriculum with other colleges of the university, it really is a separate beast.

In my undergrad, for example, I took courses in the colleges of Business, Arts and Science, Engineering and even Music, even though my eventual B.S. degree was awarded by my university's College of Business. Contrast that with my J.D.: I attended two different law schools (transferring after one year); all my classes were exclusively in the College of Law (university #1) or School of Law (university #2). None of my classmates -- other than a couple pursuing a joint JD/MBA -- took any courses from any other college; and no faculty taught courses in both the law school and any of the other colleges. And those JD/MBA students were really attending two colleges, and getting two degrees; if any of them ended up with a Wikipedia article, both colleges and degrees would be listed.

It's not always that way, but the exceptions are notable for being exceptions. Grammy-winning classical pianist Angelin Chang, for example, is a professor at Cleveland State University, and I believe is on the faculties of both the Cleveland–Marshall College of Law and the university's undergraduate college in the Music Department. But that's so rare it's worth noting as an unusual exception. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if there were a dozen or so professors who taught in both their university's law school and graduate or undergraduate business departments.)

I seem to have gone off on a tangent about the relative compartmentalization of the faculty rather than the students; but it was really to point up the separation of the specialized graduate schools from the parent university; and that point stands even for the alumni. TJRC (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

To whoever this may concern:

I am totally baffled by what is taking place here. If no consensus is reached? What then? How do I know when a consensus has been reached?? And what if no one will, how do I get proof that the budget is $59 million and end it? In addition to this, it is not edit warring to correct something that has been repeatedly proven as true. If others choose to change it, it is no more argumentative to change it back as it is they insisting it is true. That being said, I haven’t made more than three edits to this page in 24 hours, therefore, there is no reason for the warning message. I do feel it’s important that the material on the page is correct, and I feel anyone else who reads it would agree. S26205229 (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of the discussion on your talk page; I've responded there. TJRC (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there,

I am so confused. Not with you - with this site. I’ve been on it for several months now, but have never really gotten the hang of it and never had any useful help.

As far as the first man incident, I apologize for my comment earlier: “I will, but for now it’s $59 million” or whatever I said. I had just had a very bad customer service incident at work, was hangry, and typed without thinking. My apologies. Is there any way for me to delete my comment?

My frustration with this site is growing though. For instance, I can’t find any page that has step by step instructions on how to edit. I once tried to remove an incorrect article listed as a reference, and I accidentally messed up the html code without realizing. When I went to go back, it was accidentally saved and the next thing I knew, it was blocked (I think); it said because of “sabotage.” I had no idea what happened! Also, the comments I’ve made regarding the changes: they were from people who messaged me quite bluntly (some rudely) about my change, and I thought I was responding to THEM. I didn’t know I had created a discussion or “talk” and I have no idea how I did that or how any of it works! So please bear in mind that any comments I have made that seemed intense were responding to a nasty person. I feel awful knowing that it didn’t go to them, but to the forum!

Long story short, I am completely bewildered by what’s going on. I wasn’t trying to do anything other than change a number back to where several sources have listed it. I didn’t know edit warring even existed, but now that you’ve described it, I realize my last comment classified as it. I also didn’t realize that what I sent you was copied to three different locations, and I have NO idea how that happened!

Please send me some useful links to editing a page! Thanks

S26205229 (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The information has a source that is reliable. Please reply asap concerning my edit. Thanks. Karuna Devi Dasi (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Your edit did not include any source. Your talk page refers to "Utube" in a separate topic, but I think it is in response to my note to you. I'm guessing you mean "Youtube". If all it is is a recording of the show, that's not a reliable source discussing the show; it's basically WP:OR.

We don't need to document every performance a musical artist has ever made. There's nothing in your proposed edit that indicates this performance is in any way remarkable, unusual or otherwise notable. TJRC (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I posted "From 2008-2019 Linda was married to digital art pioneer Brentano Haleen" I am Brentano Haleen and a google search will show that I am a digital art pioneer, and that I was married to Linda during the time mentioned until very recently. A search will show that for the last three years she has been, and is currently, teaching in El Segundo at the Toyota Center (where Frank Carroll, her coach was teaching and has recently retired) and living in Los Angeles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:2200:2F00:6109:B912:F9CF:7A3D (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are, in fact, Brentano Haleen; but it doesn't much matter. Wikipedia requires material -- especially material in WP:BLP articles -- to be supported by reliable, published sources. Please read WP:RS for detail. TJRC (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello TJRC. Like you, I was a bit skeptical of the phrase Britain’s sausage renaissance. Thinking it might have been a bit of literary flare on part of one of our fellow users. That is why I removed it from a straight statement, to a phrase in quotes. I conceded to poetic license. So when you removed it altogether, I thought you were being a little strict, but nonetheless on solid ground. Then I found this: [1]. The Economist, no less. The phrase is in the headline. I won't revert your edit, but you may wish to reconsider. Cheers! Gulbenk (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a bit over the top, and does not sound like "Britain’s sausage renaissance" is an actual accepted phenomenon apart from one headline writer; but probably worth noting with a cite to the Economist. How's this? TJRC (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

That certainly improves the article. Thanks Gulbenk (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me for disturbing, I have no intention of doing vandalism against all articles, but I added about his/her life with nationality with flag. Thanks for your advice.

Alif Fizol (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No big deal; answered further at User talk:Alif Fizol TJRC (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I delete all nationality flag person. See in my contributions. Thanks.

Alif Fizol (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you unpiped a link on an unsolved death case article. Wikipedia administrator Daniel Case has thanked me multiple times for piping those links, so that is the right format. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you point me to the edit you're referring to? TJRC (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The article Murder of Amy Mihaljevic, this is what I meant. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, TJRC; the articles you pointed me to are very helpful. I'm just getting started by editing subjects I know. Looking forward to contributing more for the common good! Ronhilltoon (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand why you believe Google Books links (that often contain a partial online version of a book) are unacceptable. Google Books is a digital library, not a bookseller. (They do, however, link to some of the larger booksellers.) I have added Google Books links to perhaps dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedia articles and have not encountered the assertion that this practice is unacceptable before. Can you point to any specific prohibition against using them? Such a policy would almost certainly be spelled out if they were actually considered unacceptable. If that was the case, why would the Google Books tool have been created, be maintained (see messages), and be listed under "See also" on the Template:Cite book page? WolfmanSF (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I was mostly offline the past few days for the US Memorial Day long weekend holiday. I see you've also started a separate discussion with other editors at User talk:Nikkimaria#Re: delinking Donner Party book Further reading entries. I've replied there. TJRC (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I ask you, sir, and every other doubter:

What earthly good's a knout

without

a properly trained knouter?

(See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEjLFpU2pJ4 )

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You made my day! And the video was the perfect touch, now I can't get the alternate lyrics out of my head! TJRC (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

This also comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TytGOeiW0aE . Enjoy! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this revert. I thought I Restored to Tassedethe's version but clicked Rollback AGF. Thanks again.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! I re-did the edit on Santa Monica High School with a proper citation. Novabrahm (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for contacting me. It would, however, be nice of you to appreciate someone's effort for adding value to the article entitled "University of Benin" especially when if he/she is a rookie. You only saw my weaknesses, but refused to see my little yet profound input. Thanks! Zizikuli (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, you were right about me being new to editing Wikipedia, so I will try to read a bit more on the rules and guidelines. In that specific case, though, I only added Rogers and Bell as examples as a duopoly, so I didn't feel a citation was needed. None of the other examples had citations quoted, since they were just examples, listed the two major players in the respective industry, and didn't really go into heavy details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeAfghan (talk • contribs) 23:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your understanding. Those other entries that don't have citations were flagged as a problem. They're bad examples, not something you should emulate! Since the clean-up tag was made almost two years ago, plenty of time for editors to add sources, I've actually gone and deleted all the unsupported entries.

Also note the comment that would have shown up in the top of the box where you made your edit:

<!-- Do not add examples without providing a reliable source that characterize them as duopolies. The source need not use the word "duopoly," but it must note the anticompetitive effect of a two-entity market. Your own opinion is not sufficient. -->

TJRC (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

TJRC, thank you so much for your criticism, but they are not constructive, and I've got no association with any article on Wikipedia.

Please, be kind and nice.

Thanks. Zizikuli (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You have six different experienced editors politely explaining to you how your edits contravene Wikipedia policy and guidelines. When a new editor is told over and over again that he or she is doing something wrong by several other editors with more experience, he or she should entertain the possibility that it is his or her actions that are the problem, not everyone else.

The many, many, warnings you have gotten are a courtesy to enable you to change your ways instead of getting blocked. TJRC (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Since you were one of the editors dealing with OfficeBoy back in Feb this year when I got involved, this is a heads up that I've created an ANI discussion about his sourcing problems, if you want to weigh in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I've commented. TJRC (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Willis Shapley You could have just said that you had resolved the redlink situation instead of getting confrontational, but thanks for your contributions! 5Ept5xW (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Seriously, though: the redlink should stay. You don't remove redlinks because there is no article. You remove them if there never could be an article. Redlinks are a signal that, hey, this is a potential case for a new article to be created, to help Wikipedia grow. You may disagree with that, but it's a question of judgment, and questions of judgment call for discussion.

The whole point here is there could reasonably be an article on Shapley; so the redlink is a good thing. I think that's true of MESA, too; it may not be a huge article (see Deadfacing, which I created yesterday and may never grow any larger than it is), but that's okay.

More importantly, though, as soon as you see a conflict (of almost any kind, really, not just about redlinks), when your edit is reverted, only in very exceptional cases should you re-revert. It's a signal to discuss, not revert.

None of this is to discourage you: you're still pretty new here, and just learning the ropes, and I can see you have been more productive in your first month than I was in mine, twelve years ago, and I know I made my share of missteps (and still do now and then; although hopefully fewer these days).

So welcome, and keep it up. TJRC (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, what is the point of your sudden policing of the article? JimmyPiersall (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivial sightings of miscellaneous subjects being mentioned in media. There is no indication whatsoever that a passing mention of Cleveland in a film is of sufficient import to be put into an encyclopedia. There are many places on the Internet where that would be fine, but an encyclopedia is not one of them. You might want to look into starting a blog.

It's not just a matter of whether the trivia happens to be true. If no other published source discusses it, Wikipedia should not be the place where it should be published for the first time.

This has obviously been a problem with this article in particular. Someone (not me) put that very conspicuous notice into the article because of it. This article is in miserable shape. My point here, as in all my edits, is to make the article better.

The more telling inquiry is, why do you want this article to be unsourced fancruft trivia, and how do you relate that to Wikipedia's goals? TJRC (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Simply put, the article is fun and serves its purpose. And honestly, many people use Wikipedia for that purpose and is part of it's popularity, even though it might not be technically correct. Yea, you're not going to find a lot of articles in the Chicago Tribute written about the stuff in it. I guess we could source transcripts of the movies and such for everything, but there's no point because it can be easily found. The article has always been this way it has and was accepted knowing it was going to be that way. It's just strange to me that someone would randomly jump in and start policing it. I guess if that's what gets you going with your time, go for it. Go ahead and delete it. However, in my experience, it never fails that when people go around doing silly edit reverts, they have created poorly sourced articles themselves about obscure things they are interested in that are not notable and fail to hold themselves to their own standard. JimmyPiersall (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with TJRC. If we are to have these articles/sections, we should have them in WP-shape. That is, a secondary source must have noticed it and bothered to comment on it. If noone did, we shouldn't either. There's often plenty of stuff that can be reasonably sourced, and weeding out the rest is good work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was fun for me while it lasted. Lists are a grey area of Wikipedia. It's just funny to me that TJRC will fuss over that, but on the other hand created an article that literally has zero sources and doesn't bother to fuss with that. For now, I guess users of the page will stop updating the page if it still exists. JimmyPiersall (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

With respect to the two articles that you retaliated by putting up at AFD (here and here), neither had zero sources; and the reality is that a lot in Wikipedia has changed since when I created those.

In the case of Jack Thomas (academic), I created that about some seven years ago, as a result of cleaning up the disambiguation page Jack Thomas and the several articles that erroneously pointed to it. As part of that, I noted that Western Illinois University listed him as president of the university, but there was no applicable article on him. There's no question that a university president met notability threshold, so rather than leaving it unlinked or as a red link, I created the article, with sources. Yes, the sources were from his affiliated university, and should be improved, but those were the best available at the time, and given the clear notability, were acceptable.

In the case of Urban Romantic, the requirement for notability of an album when I created that ten years ago was, at that time "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia". So creation of that article, given the standard of the time, with the source that I provided, was sufficient. I will grant that, given the changes of notability standards as changed since then, an article in that condition would not pass muster today. But it's rather silly to apply a 2019 standard of review that did not exist to a 2009 creation of an article.

But as I said in that AfD, I "do not object to deletion of an article that doesn't merit inclusion, whether it originated with me or not." I put a lot of effort into cleaning up (not creating, though) Cara-C, for example, but still supported its deletion. It's all about improving the encyclopedia, not our individual egos.

Finally, prior to putting an article up for deletion, you should follow the guidance at WP:BEFORE. Had you done so, you would have realized neither article should be deleted and saved everyone some time. And if you do follow through and put it up for deletion, you should follow WP:GD, including appropriate notifications. TJRC (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Great job. I appreciate the time you are putting into this and for that informative lesson. I was not referring to either of those two articles when I mentioned that one of your articles has zero sources. You did well with those loopholes. However, the one you have with no sources is not covered by one of them. It doesn't have a special notability exemption like being on a pop chart or university president. Maybe you should put some more time into that article and others now that you understand Wikipedia better so they can better align with Wikipedia's goals.JimmyPiersall (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You're being a little too coy for me to know what you're talking about. If I knew what you were referring to, I'd try to address it. But no matter. TJRC (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

[Conversation consolidated at User talk:Jasonmartineau.] TJRC (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)]

Ah. What I got from that link is "Error code 16 This request was blocked by the security rules", but it seems this was a version of the Great Firewall of EU messages we Europeans sometimes get from smaller US-media. Good catch. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It's also ad-block protected, but I turned Javascript off and was able to view. I included the quote just to be on the safe side. Nice tag-teaming with you! TJRC (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Echo! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

What bugs me about Eunice Eloisae Gibbs Allyn is that Brecksville gives no hit if you search for it on the gbookspage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

My google books search was Eunice Eloisae Gibbs Allyn "brecksville" -wikipedia. I figured with a four-part name, there would likely be hits with only a partial name, or in a different order, so I left it out of quotes. And that worked; she's listed as "Allyn, Mrs. Eunice Eloisae Gibbs"; "Eunice Eloisae Gibbs Allyn" would never have found that. TJRC (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Your google-fu is powerful indeed, I'll try to remember that one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Why you changed name? from assets to investmenrts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

With the parts that had been unsourced for a decade deleted, the entire content of the article was investments, not assets. TJRC (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello can you create one more category? For Products and Services? I have a few things that would to add — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I did not change any categories.

If you mean you want to add some Microsoft products to an article, take a look at Microsoft hardware, List of Microsoft software. Although those articles are both in very poor shape. Don't add anything without proper sourcing, please; that only makes bad articles worse. TJRC (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh There is a hardware list nice to know but a better name would be List of Microsoft devices or explanation: When I think of hardware I think of cpu, gpu etc. devices make more sense And a link in MS articel to hardwae list? And I meant that the article has a infobox with Products/Services and maybe add a complete overview in the MS article? Why? Easy to explain overview I have many of things which I want to add but in the infobox shows that not good - too many things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

And I have two questions ok?

first The archive link in the refs shows 6,333 billion but official is 6 billion why is that so?

second the company has gaming companies are that owned by Microsoft or by his division Xbox Game Studios? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the answers; maybe the information is out of date, or the reference just rounds. That's why references are important to have. TJRC (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Outdated? how? if the official 6b and the archive 6,333 billion. And my ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No, other than as above. If the article is incorrect and you have a current source for current data go ahead and update it citing to that source. TJRC (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Why not other names? What is for yyou hardware? And devices? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't even understand what you're asking. TJRC (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

difference between hardware and devices, devices make more sense. "hardware and devices", I want to know what is hardware for you? Explain it. Same by devices what are devices for you? Explain it. Now unterstood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I can help you. My edit of the article was to remove the material that has been flagged as uncited, and was subject to removal unless cited, for almost ten years, and then cleaning it up and retitling it to reflect what could be salvaged. I did not try to define "hardware" or anything of that nature. TJRC (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Why you have my edits changed back? in MS Sofzware — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason is in my edit summary: unsourced addition to list already tagged as requiring sources. TJRC (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Board Chair means that Chairman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you should ask your questions on the talk page of the article to which they pertain. I'm not really in a position to give one-on-one generalized advice.

Wikipedia does have a program in place to pair up users who would like one-on-one assistance; have a look at WP:ADOPT. TJRC (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I have many things changed I hope its all right :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The a article clearly states Karyn Temple was an English Major at a university of Michigan. Check their website., as I did. If I don’t know something, I don’t change it. Perhaps you can learn something from me. I’ll save you the effort. Here’s the page from the UM website saying English is a major at LSA. https://lsa.umich.edu/english/undergraduate/english-major.html

Apology accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19C:4682:37C0:1858:9601:A25:1A05 (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article on this, so it's an unsourced addition. It would be a great addition if you also update the article to document that with a source. TJRC (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)