This user has opted out of talkbacks

Submitting an article request

Hi there. I was wondering how long it usually takes for an article to get (potentially) published after submitting a request. OrGadol679 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrGadol679. I don't know how long it takes requested articles to get written. It probably varies greatly depending on the subject of the article. Someone at the Wikipedia:Teahouse might be able to give you a better answer. — JJMC89 15:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for Brodha V

Dear @JJMC89:, Thank you for making edits on my draft page for Brodha V My article has been declined for the second time and I am not sure how to make it more neutral than it is. On the Articles for creation help desk they asked me to refer to Ayumi Hamasaki as an example of maintaining a neutral tone. I feel like my article carries the same tone or maybe I'm blind to my writing and I'm not noticing the tone. I was also told to provide more reliable sources, however all my sources are published news articles. I'm not sure which ones I need to change. Could you please help me out with this article? Many thanks! Nramesh (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've had responses at the AfC help desk and at the Teahouse. You should following up on those discussions if you have more questions. — JJMC89 21:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rong fonts

Hi, could you please add a line 

<span style="font-family:'Mingzat', 'Mainwaring Rong', 'XenoType Lepcha', 'Noto Sans Lepcha';">

to the language support page such that it will be automatically applied whenever we apply ((lang)) (lep-Lepc) to a text? The Rong language is not supported well on most computers without this line. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

((Lang)) does not apply any styling; it only indicates the language of the text. Redrose64 may be able to point you to the proper template series that applies styles similar to your request. ((Script))? — JJMC89 21:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recall something along these lines some months ago, I think that it concerned a right-to-left script, possibly Hebrew. There were two templates, one of them set a font and the other didn't. I don't remember where it was discussed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all anyway! @JJMC89 @Redrose64 --146.96.252.3 (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found it, Template talk:Lang#Rendering Hebrew. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Hanoune

Why are you doing some harm to a page I have created, need to understand. Ne.pas12 (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done anything harmful. I, and others, don't think Hanoune meets our inclusion criteria for people. You have been trying to create such an article since 2012. What is you connection to Hanoune? — JJMC89 05:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Iam not trying to create it now, it was there for 5 years and for some political reasons, someone deleted it, it's very complicated, but let me tell you that egyptian gov is deleting all activists from interen, it's a huge story, and this page wasn't new, it was there for 5 years, then as u an see they r deleting evry1 from the internet. it's a political reasons. as for Omar Hanoune he is well known, and you an check the ref urself my friend. Ne.pas12 (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was not deleted for political reasons; it was deleted for not meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Since you didn't answer the question, what is you connection to Hanoune? — JJMC89 05:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No my friend, it was deleted from wiki arabia for political reasons, and they work for egy Gov, they told us that 3 years ago, and moreover things here in egypt is not the same as in the US, as for Omar Hanoune and others, I'm one of their supporters in courts and in real life. and you can find a very strange thing that the urdu version of this page is still there, but the arabic version was deleted 3 years ago as I told u, it's very complaceted and I won't be able to explain to u, u will never understand how the egy gov uses internet now as a weapon to silence all. finally thanks for ur support for human rights and democracy in Egypt!! Ne.pas12 (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Each project is independent, so what happened at arwiki is irrelevant. — JJMC89 06:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent intervention over the matter of my misplaced entry on Village Pump (Technical)

I don't know what had occurred with the entry that I attempted to make on the Village Pump (Technical)section, as this has never occurred previously. Can I ask if what you did would have brought the matter of the recent print-outs of any "Template ****Railway RDT" (where between each normal line spacing between stations, an extra blank line has suddenly appeared, giving the image of a widely spaced print with the line itself looking as if it is now a dotted line) to the attention to those at Wikipedia who can make the necessary amendments to bring matters back to normal. I am now 72 years of age and unfortunately not as aware as Í used to be prior to suffering a stroke in July 2012. Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Xenophon Philosopher: You asked me something very similar yesterday: and I explained this at User talk:Redrose64#Reference to your recent guidance on Wikipedia template print-outs and matters subsequent to it., and others have done so at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Problem suddenly found when printing out RDT line templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I have caused any duplication, as I was at a loss to know where matters stood with regards to the resolution of the problem that I had raised originally. Incidentally, I have attempted to print out both Template : Disused Exeter to Plymouth line stations RDT and Template:Disused railway stations (Plymouth to Penzance Line)this morning and the problem still has not been attended to as both my print-outs have widely spaced sections between the stations and the lines in question still give the appearance of a dotted line. Have you any idea when matters will be back to normal? Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

((bots)) tag

Hey there, I noticed that you recently removed the ((bots)) tag from a few articles, including the articles for Appeal (diff) and Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. (diff). You noted in your edit summary that there was "no evidence of ongoing issue." I have added this tag to articles that use Bluebook style references because InternetArchiveBot adds text to references that is not consistent with the Bluebook style. See, for example, this edit by the bot that I later fixed manually. Unless you have any objections, I am going to re-add the template to those articles. In any event, I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Notecardforfree. IABot is doing what it is supposed to do. Why would you want to have dead links? Yes, you may need to update the style to Bluebook, but that would be preferable to a dead link. — JJMC89 02:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, JJMC89 -- I've been thinking about this over the weekend and, upon further reflection, I think you are right. My initial response to slap the template on articles that use Bluebook may have been a bit reactionary. All things considered, I think you are correct that it's better to manually update citation styles than to have dead links. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you've reconsidered, Notecardforfree. — JJMC89 22:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

We butted heads a bit the other day, but I think that's just because we both care about WP. I hope there are no hard feelings, and I hope I didn't cross any lines. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Cheers! — JJMC89 19:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox military award

Hello, I hope you can help me with this question, i would like to add an important field in this template; can you fix this for me?--Carolus (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The first step is to start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox military award. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also leave a notice at WT:MILHIST. — JJMC89 19:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how does this work? Should i write a new chapter in News & open tasks ? It seems very confusing too much info. --Carolus (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming from 176.228.51.95

I ran across this ip and saw the warnings you left on the ip's talk page. I've rolled back a couple and am wondering if another block is warranted. Is there any other discussion about this ip? Can you look over the subsequent edits since the block? --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz: I've reverted a few more edits. Along with adding extraneous/spam external links, the IP makes some edits against WP:NOTBROKEN. I came across the IP during RC patrol almost two weeks before the block and haven't seen any discussion about them. The IP apparently didn't learn from the block since they just repeated the last edit before the block after it ended with a different YouTube video. I'm not sure if a block is needed, but someone should keep an eye on them. — JJMC89 22:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Levenson

JJ, I see you marked an article I recently created, Stewart Levenson, as having some problems and mentioned in your edit summary that it was a possible candidate for BLP1E. It may seem odd to hear it, but you have my gratitude: I was paid to create the article, and the person in question rejected my version of the piece and insisted that I substitute his own. I explained that regardless, the article would be a candidate for a BLP1E argument, and that his version was likely to be tagged as such or even nominated for deletion as failing a notability test. I am expected to defend it if it does become nominated for deletion, though such a defense will likely be cursory at best on my part. Personally, I think a move to an article space about the hospital or the event is not at all inappropriate (subject has been warned about those possibilities as well). If you got an inkling to do that, you can expect no resistance from me. I am not saying you should do this... am I? Anyhow, thank you for confirming my suspicions here. KDS4444 (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more quick thing: the COI template suggests that there will be a corresponding talk page discussion about changes the article needs in order to comply with WP:NPOV. I couldn't agree more, but am concerned that some other editor may remove your tag (which the /doc for the tag says they can do) if there is no actual discussion located on the talk page. Could I get you to initiate that discussion? I would do it myself but as the article creator, I am a poor (i.e., non-credible) candidate. Thanks again! KDS4444 (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article was written by the subject: [Levenson] preferred his version of the article, so am now publishing that. — JJMC89 03:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more bit: I am a little concerned that a BLP1E "argument" (if one needed to be made, though as I said I would not object to it) could be contraindicated on these grounds: the event appears to likely be notable (which I think it probably is) and the subject's role within the event is large/ substantial (which I think no one would disagree with). When I look over the guidelines for BLP1E with care, I get the idea that maybe the hospital should have an article AND this person should also have a standalone article. That's not an outcome I am hoping for here, mind you, but I am wondering if it isn't the kind of outcome the article might warrant "according to policy/ guidelines". Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KDS4444 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<24 Google News hits for Levenson doesn't say much for him being notable. The hits are only related to this one event. He is one of a group of whistle-blowers. What make him notable and not the others? The current article is mostly about the event, not Levenson, himself; it's more of a pseudo-biography. I don't know that an article about the hospital is warranted either. An article on the event, maybe. — JJMC89 03:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More