User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2015/December

United World College of South East Asia

Hi JJMC89,
I'm new to this and didn't saw your messages until now. I do want to add citations to the edits I did on "United World College of South East Asia" but in order to add citations I need to put back my new changes in there. So I can add the citations. can I undo your undoing of my edits so I can continue.
Or do I need to start from the scratch so all the citations added before saving the page. Jayanath uwc (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Armenian Heritage Park

Hi, my name is Arlette and I'm with the Armenian Heritage Park. I corrected the errors on the page by editing. It's my first time and I'm having a hard time navigating this site and didn't know to leave a message. Can you please help me make my edits stick! When I leave the page it reverts back to the wrong information. Many many thanks! arlette — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.36.175 (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sock Ritu sarma913

There is a discussion of this user for being sock of Champak bora. In addition, i had been reported the users at admin noticeboard for getting attention. D'SuperHero (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Butch and Femme Article

Hi! I saw your message about the citations, however, I wasn't exactly sure I could add a website as a reference therefore I added the links to all of the organizations I wrote about under the external links section so technically it is sourced. Thanks. Brridge (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Brridge: Since you only added external links to the homepages of three websites and not the specific pages that support the content, the added content was unsourced. Please use inline citations to reliable sources to support any claims. — JJMC89 08:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your hard work. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 08:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@CatcherStorm: Thanks! — JJMC89 08:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

List of George Franklin Barber works and skyscrapercity.com

I went back and read some of the admin discussion of the rationale for deleting references to internet discussion forums. It makes sense, but in the case of this deleted instance, the reference was not pointed to the discussion, but to a photo of the house. I respectfully disagree that a photo showing the existence of a thing is less valid because it appears on a discussion board. It still exists. I would just undo the revision, but have some suspicion that a bot will keeping targeting it. Archarin (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Archarin: SkyscraperCity has been blacklisted, so it cannot be added back. ImageShack is the original source of that image; it was just used on the forum. There are other pages to show existence such as this. — JJMC89 22:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Good enough - a workaround solves any disagreement. Thanks, Archarin (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing

Could you edit the page in this way; see this:

Extended content

Highest-grossing films of 2010 Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross 1. Toy Story 3 Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar $1,063,171,911 2. Alice in Wonderland Walt Disney Pictures $1,025,467,110 3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 Warner Bros. $960,283,305 4. Inception Warner Bros. / Legendary $825,532,764 5. Shrek Forever After Paramount / DreamWorks $752,600,867 6. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse Summit Entertainment $698,491,347 7. Iron Man 2 Paramount / Marvel Studios $623,933,331 8. Tangled Walt Disney Pictures $591,794,936 9. Despicable Me Universal / Illumination $543,113,985 10. How to Train Your Dragon Paramount / DreamWorks $494,878,759

or this [1].

Is it wrong to be kept in that way;If yes then why;Why is it wrong;Why; Moreover, could you change the page 2011 in film in this way;

Extended content

Highest-grossing films of 2011 Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross 1 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 Warner Bros. $1,341,511,219 2 Transformers: Dark of the Moon Paramount $1,123,794,079 3 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Walt Disney Pictures $1,045,713,802 4 The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 Summit $712,205,856 5 Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol Paramount $694,713,380 6 Kung Fu Panda 2 Paramount / DreamWorks $665,692,281 7 Fast Five Universal $626,137,675 8 The Hangover Part II Warner Bros. $586,764,305 9 The Smurfs Columbia/Sony Pictures Animation $563,749,323 10 Cars 2 Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar $559,852,396

and also page 2010 in film in this way;

Extended content

Highest-grossing films of 2010 Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross 1. Toy Story 3 Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar $1,063,171,911 2. Alice in Wonderland Walt Disney Pictures $1,025,467,110 3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 Warner Bros. $960,283,305 4. Inception Warner Bros. / Legendary $825,532,764 5. Shrek Forever After Paramount / DreamWorks $752,600,867 6. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse Summit Entertainment $698,491,347 7. Iron Man 2 Paramount / Marvel Studios $623,933,331 8. Tangled Walt Disney Pictures $591,794,936 9. Despicable Me Universal / Illumination $543,113,985 10. How to Train Your Dragon Paramount / DreamWorks $494,878,759

If you don't understand look at the pages Talk:2010 in film,Talk:2011 in film and Talk:2012 in film and se what I have done.Then you will understand what I am talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.255.196 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2015 December 8 (UTC)

References

No. Discuss this at Talk:2015 in film#Disagrreement. Also, see WP:FORUMSHOP. — JJMC89 02:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The pages 2012 in film 2011 in film and 2010 in film have not been editing since 5th of December in that specific way. I am writing this in order to tell you to edit these thre pages according to the page 2015 in film. Only these thre pages. Why aren't you doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.255.196 (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And I'm telling you no. — JJMC89 18:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary spaces

Re this edit to the List of shipwrecks in 1777, would you please not insert unnecessary spaces between the asterisk and bold italics in the ship names. There are hundreds of shipwreck lists that all follow the same style. This is not an error. Mjroots (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting to join a debate for James Stunt

JJMC89 I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks JJMC89 Toniaesposito76 (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi

just wanted you to know that I have reverted changes you have made to Duncan Barkes as the changes you made I've found to be needless for these reasons:-

1. You place a different clean up tag that means the same as the clean up tag already present.
2. You seemed to have deleted all internal links I had created for this page.

May I remind you that it is always good Etiquette after editing an article to Send a message to the author to make them aware of the changes. it is also good practice to record the changes in the editing box after making any changes. hope you don't feel I'm being rude. Thanks for listening. XXample (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@XXample: The maintenance templates were grouped with {{multiple issues}}, not changed. There shouldn't be a section of internal links, especially one that includes links already present elsewhere in the article (WP:OVERLINKING). There is no need to inform an editor of changes to an article since articles do not belong to a single editor. I did note changes in my edit summary (ce, meaning copy edit). It wasn't detailed since the revision included many changes to bring the article inline with our manual of style. Thanks for discussing it, and no, you're not being rude. — JJMC89 08:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Ash'ari

I have temporary revert your edit. Use the right reason in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashantbhukamp (talk • contribs) 07:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Hi, I read your suggestion on notability guidelines. I was actively editing the articles and I will be including additional 3rd party citations to satisfy notability. DA1 (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Mac & Cheese: The Album had multiple citations from various reputable music sources such as Rolling Stone, MTV and HNHH. The article does meet notability guidelines from my understanding. DA1 (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@DA1: The sources are just release announcements. None of them provide in depth coverage of the album. The references cited do not show that the album has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works. — JJMC89 05:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources cited do indeed contain in depth coverage of the album, in the case of Mac & Cheese: The Album. You may verify any of the links on that from the MTV and HNHH articles, most of which are centered entirely around that album. The articles where I do lack in depth citations, I have not reverted or edited and will only do so when I have the relevant sources. DA1 (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@DA1: Let's break down the sources. datpiff: track listing that isn't for this album. HNHH: cover art reveal, not significant coverage. MTV (both): brief mentions in the text. brief video interview with artist about work on the album and potential features, primary source. Rolling Stone: This could be okay. There is not enough to establish notability. There isn't an official release date yet. The two MTV articles go from Nov. 2014 to "soon" in 2015, and now it appears to be 2016. My searches turn up other mentions have various other release dates that never happened. The album could be mentioned in the artist's article (if it isn't already); however, I don't think it needs a standalone article yet. — JJMC89 07:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

If its considered improper to leave ambiguous statements on the 'upcoming' release date, then we can appropriately edit that out. However, on the topic of the article itself and its existence, I think the sheer amount of sources warrant it being left alone. Its a legitimate album that is being worked on, with relevant artists such as Kanye West and Miguel and others, and I don't see any reason why it has to be deleted. The MTV citations are just as relevant as the Rolling Stone citation. DA1 (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Dino Arslanagić

Dino Arslanagic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,
Could you please change the current name of this page into Slavic version of it? It is Dino Arslanagić, not Arslanagic.
Thank you! HankMoodyTZ (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@HankMoodyTZ: You can do this yourself. See the instructions on moving a page. — JJMC89 01:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Butte AK

Hello, first time editing a page here. I was having done trouble and fluffed it up the first few times. I noticed that the edits were removed for some reason. I went back in again and resubmitted then again. Unfortunately the first time I did it as an anonymous user. I will add the citations for the added businesses at a later time. Northwind Northwind Homestead (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I am an official represenitive of Shurat Hadin sir, and you have modified a page update which we have edited to provide official additional updates and information. Please do not change again the updates we add sir.
Thank you and happy holidays,
Tom (Shurat HaDin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomerNuni (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2015 December 31 (UTC)