User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2016/June

Active discussions

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
Hello, didn't know how else to contact you but I keep reversing the edit because you the section you're deleting from Dark Horizons removes an integral piece of information about the Justice League movie which I direct and without it, that quote makes no sense out of context. The source links directly back to Dark Horizons which is a renowned film news source and not an affiliated link. Hope that helps clear up some confusion, thank you Gretz2471 (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@Gretz2471: IMDb and social media, such as Twitter, are not reliable sources. If you can provide reliable sources, then you are welcome to re-add the information. — JJMC89 19:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Fountainball Page

@JJMC89 Noticed you made a comment on my Draft:Fountainball page regarding notability. Is there a reason that it is not currently notable?
Within the field that it is in, political consulting, it is a notable thing. While the field may be small it is an interesting piece and I believe deserves some recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattyFredrick (talkcontribs) 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@MattyFredrick: The draft doesn't have sufficient reliable sources. You should take a look at WP:42. — JJMC89 01:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mayonnaise band page update

Hi. Please do not delete the band's history and all other important information. I am doing this on behalf of the band. I am their vocalist's partner and I am also part of their current label. I cannot cite any other sources since websites do not feature them as much that is why I am editing their Wikipedia page since this is the only reference of them. Please allow me to edit their page. Thank you Lydelosreyes (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lydelosreyes: Unsourced material contravenes our verifiability policy. See also WP:42 and WP:COI. I have left additional information on your talk page. — JJMC89 07:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Contesting Speedy Deletion

Split Personality (Mila J album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is there a chance that this article can be improve instead of being redirected and deleted as I feel that this article is notable and with help I feel that before the page is deleted, editors come to a consensus before removal as I feel the page has potential to improve, the page was redirected before I was able to finish, my edit didn't aim to be distrupive as I do not wish to start an edit war or get reported for disruptive editing, I just feel I am knowledgeable on the topic and have more contributions to add. ---- (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@SmithN41V: It is not a speedy deletion. Consensus to redirect the article was determined at WP:Articles for deletion/Split Personality (Mila J album). WP:Deletion review is the appropriate venue to challenge the outcome. — JJMC89 01:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there any criteria I would have to follow for the article to establish notability and I have found more sources on the background of the article I feel can improve the page. I can totally understand why you just redirected the article, however I can think of countless Wikipedia articles that are a lot less detailed and less notable, is there a comprise that could be reached such as merging the album page to the bottom of her main page or something as I was largely disappointed to find an article I consider to be knowledgeable about to be redirected this quickly, In summary is there any opportunity or way to restore this article yet making it meet your article notability standards? Thank You. — (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@SmithN41V: See the notability guideline for albums. The state of other stuff has no bearing on this article. If you have multiple independent reliable sources that significantly cover the album, then a case for recreating the article could be made. The only source that was in the article that I redirected that counts toward establishing notability is the AllMusic review, which was noted in the AfD. The album is discussed in Mila J § 2006–2013: Split Personality debut, so some additional (reliably sourced) information could be added there if it is due. — JJMC89 05:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What is

I noticed you just removed an EL to from Lucy Maud Montgomery's BLP and it caught my attention because another editor just added an EL to to another article in my watchlist earlier today, Florbela Espanca. Is it linkspam? PermStrump(talk) 05:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hah I just noticed you removed that one too with an edit summary that answers my question, soo nevermind. :) PermStrump(talk) 05:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the McKeown family

Dear Sir. I added those things to the McKeown family because those people are my cousins and they are fine with what is on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezy Les (talkcontribs) 02:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cheezy Les: It is not appropriate to insult/attack people on Wikipedia. — JJMC89 03:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Party

Could you please explain to me why Gary Johnson throwing away Austin Petersen's replica gun makes Johnson a neoconservative? Or in what way William Weld's support for eminent domain and the assault weapons ban makes him a neoconservatism? Or how Karl Rove saying "If you don't want Hillary Clinton and you don't want Donald Trump, you've already got an alternative in the Libertarian Party that's on all 50 state ballots," amounts to "praise" rather than a neutral statement (and an incorrect statement, given that the Libertarian Party is only currently on the ballot in 33 states.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJPEG (talkcontribs) 03:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted my edit to Libertarian Party (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 04:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Bay Area meetups

Hey JJMC89 - I randomly happened across your page and noticed you are in the Bay Area. I'm helping to organize in-person meetups in the area. Check out Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2016 if you're interested. Ben Creasy (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Ben. I'm aware of the WikiSalons. I am interested; however, I don't have time to make it up to WMF offices in SF during the week. — JJMC89 08:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

G 5

I'm not seeing the evidence for Keo Soksela or the associated draft. Did I miss something?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: The SPI is pending. The draft was the same as the article, so I assumed that the IP was also 089baby. It might (can't see the deleted versions) also be deleted by G4. I will defer to your or Sir Sputnik's opinions for suitability for deletion, so feel free to decline the speedy. If the article is kept, the draft should be histmerged into it. — JJMC89 15:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

Hi JJMC89, thank you for your suggestions and edits on the page:Anubhav Wadhwa. This page has been recipient to vandalism by some people in the recent weeks. I have decided to edit this page from scratch to thoroughly remove the vandalism because I was unable to reverse all edits by a user. Now, I have updated it to the edit before any vandalism started. I will incorporate all your suggestions and update the page with more reliable sources in a couple of days. Would love to get your feedback once it's done. Thanks! :) Techapto (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

All you did was revert my changes. I have reverted you because you reverted to a version that contains unreliably sourced information, violations of the external links guideline, and improper capitalization among other issues. — JJMC89 19:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi JJMC89, Many thanks for your guidance. I greatly appreciate and value your guidance on conflict of interest and necessary disclosures.
1) Since then I have done the necessary disclosures
2) I will not resort to undoing your edits.
3) you are requested to kindly delete the COI tag as you have already verified for unreliably sourced information.
Your support in the matter is most appreciated. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techapto (talkcontribs) 17:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


Hello I am wondering why you continue to remove sourced information from the Xolobeni page concerning the demographics and current SOURCED economic analysis, and revert it back to an unsourced statement. Please explain your motive for removing fact and replacing it with unsourced statements before I report you to Wikipedia Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiredeco (talkcontribs) 04:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed unsourced content per Wikipedia's venerability policy. I did not add anything. — JJMC89 05:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No, this is not true. I deleted a statement that had to source and included a paragraph with 5 sources, which you continue to delete. I will be requesting a review of your account if you do not stop this behaviour. I am looking to increase the information and the sources on this site, you however are deleting sourced information and replacing it with an unsourced statement. Please explain, consider this my final warning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiredeco (talkcontribs) 05:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi there. Just to let you know, {{sockpuppet|Example|proven}} is okay if "Behaviour is beyond a reasonable doubt (e.g., an admission) but there is no CU..."
Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Anna. You are correct; don't know what I was thinking. In any case, I think the SGK socks shouldn't be tagged; it only gives him attention. I think RBI is the best route. There is also a discussion about deleting the tagged pages. — JJMC89 15:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2016/June".