User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2016/March

Active discussions

AfD: Christian Layland

Sorry I was a bit slow getting the AfD page edits up - is there any chance I can get you to check through to make sure I've completed the process correctly? Tiredgrad (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tiredgrad: Its all good. I took a look; everything is in order. Happy editing! — JJMC89 04:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Link and Artwork removal?

How is it that you would approve posting album artwork & external LINKS for this page: Andre Saint-Albin
I looked at other pages for external link examples: Fedde le Grand + Armin van Buuren
The links were put just like those two pages and yet it gets removed??? Just looking for some clarification.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnkevin007 (talkcontribs) 03:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The link was actually fine. I reverted your edit because of the addition of copyrighted images. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content;Commons:Licensing therefore, you cannot upload those images to Commons. Also, those images are not your own work, which you claimed when you uploaded them there. A Commons admin has since deleted the images. — JJMC89 05:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I actually did make those artworks for him. So how do I go about posting artwork that I made for the artist? As you can see the font and format of all his releases are the same up until 2015. He has a new style for his 2016 album. This is a learning experience for me so I just want to know. If an album or EP or Track (Single) gets a wikipage (like most do) how does one go about posting the official artwork? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnkevin007 (talkcontribs) 06:40, 2016 February 29 (UTC)
@Shawnkevin007: That will depend on a few things: the copyright holder and article the artwork will be used on. Who is the copyright holder, you or Saint-Albin? This could be stipulated in a contract or other agreement. The album cover isn't necessary for the Saint-Albin article; it would be useful for an album article. All of this is moot though if the subject is not notable. — JJMC89 05:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Duly noted! Thank you for all your help JJMC89 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnkevin007 (talkcontribs) 07:46, 2016 March 3 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

U added a tag to my page titled Neel Ranjan Mukherjee for speedy deletion even though there is no reason to. Why then? Oishid3006 (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is a blatant copyright violation. — JJMC89 07:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that the information which I took was given on a public website which freely allows their viewers to use the information given on their page. Don't delete my page. Oishid3006 (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Both websites have copyright notices at the bottom, so you are not free to reuse the content. — JJMC89 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Two archives

I often like to archive twice because sometimes one archive isn't working and it's good to have another one just in case! WhisperToMe (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks WhisperToMe. Sounds good. I was mostly just curious since it was the first time I noticed multiple archives for the same source. — JJMC89 21:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Page for no reasons

Hey, Can you please explain why did you deleted Tourism in Brahmanbaria? We are here to make wikipedia better, but some of you guys ruining it. --Bangla1234 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Bangla1234 (talk)

@Bangla1234: It wasn't deleted; it was redirected. The reason was given in the edit summary: Unsourced. — JJMC89 21:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

No point in reverting the bot.

It seems to be malfunctioning and I have notified legoktm on IRC. Reverting the bot is just pointless as it is just going to put it back until it is fixed. Perhaps once a day just to see if the problem is fixed, otherwise you are fighting a machine that can't really adjust its programming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majora (talkcontribs) 05:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


Hi there, if you don't mind, I'm curious what your rationale is for removing Filmibeat across numerous Indian cinema articles. Was there a detailed discussion that you are privy to, and that I am not? Just wondering, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I don't find it to be a reliable source. Per WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources,, which is Filmibeat is a part of, is not reliable. I have also seen various others make the same call, such as here. I am not aware of any detailed discussions, but perhaps one should occur. — JJMC89 16:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, there's the disconnect--I forgot to search for Oneindia. Thanks. FYI, I started compiling a more comprehensive list of reliable and unreliable sources at User:Cyphoidbomb/ICTF FAQ. The goal was to get other editors involved in checking the sources, then getting together to discuss whether various sources should be in the reliable table, or the unreliable table. However, participation at WT:ICTF seems to be dwindling, which makes the process harder. Any time you can contribute to making this a stronger resource, would be appreciated, but of course there's no pressure. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi JJMC, you reverted my changes at the CSD page quoting that I was making a change in policy. For records, I was not making a change in policy. I was providing definitions for the wordings of the policy via a footnote as per the practice followed while tagging articles with A11. If you wish, you may undo your revert. Irrespective, I have also put up the note at the talk page. Do please give suggestions on how the wordings should be. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, Xender Lourdes. I have reverted my revert. I don't know what I thought I read the first time, but yes, you weren't making a policy change. I don't know that the footnote is needed, but I'm not going to object to it. — JJMC89 06:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I loved your edit summary out there in the re-revert :-) Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You reverted my new category

Two days ago, you emptied Category:Music (by genre and nationality), which I created and filled. I perceive your revert as a mistake, as you are interrupting the work on the category system.
I believe you are not familiar with the category system, as you reverted edits, which were based on the same logic as is the rest of the category system. There is no need for discussion if I correct a grammatical error. The reverted expansion of the category system was as logical and beyond discussion as are the rules of correct writing. Did you LOOK at the rest of the surrounding system, before reverting?
Maybe I seemed suspect to you, because I made a formal mistake in the title, but you are mistaken if you assume, that I have no idea of what I am doing.
Wikipedia:Be_bold#Category_namespace mentions Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, but this has nothing to do with my edit, as CFR is for renaming, merging or deletion of categories. My edit is uncontroversial, as it doesn't reorganizing the category structure, only expands it.
I would like you to revert your revert. CN1 (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

My reverts were not a mistake. No, your category is not the same as the rest of category system as it uses unnecessary parentheses, and all the subcategories of Category:Music by nationality are xx music. Take Category:Reggae by nationality as an example, you removed Category:Music by nationality and added your category. That is changing the category structure. WP:Be bold#Category namespace says if what you're doing might be considered controversial ..., propose changes at Categories for discussion. The fact that I reverted your change, makes it possibly controversial since someone opposes it. You proposed this at VPR, and it has not gain the support of the community. It really should have been proposed without creating or changing any categories. Quoting Od Mishehu, We use brackets in category names only where the content of the brackets would be unlikely to show up in normal prose. — JJMC89 18:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Struck: 05:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
If you still don't agree with me, I will contact someone with experience in categories and they will tell you I am right. But I hope you can see by yourself after more explaining. Understand that I am not trying to offend you, but I was a little bit angry when I wrote. Please enjoy.
All your stated reasons concerning the brackets are void an invalid, as I withdrew my proposal at a pro-contra count of 1:2. I was convinced by other users and myself, that I made a mistake and the brackets are indeed not needed. I agree with the status quo, and stated that in the comment of the deletion.
The fact that you reverted my change does not make my edits controversial, as you have no valid reasons why you reverted it. Do you think, every user is asking you or anyone else before adding or removing categories? Do you think it is your numerous Wikipedia honor badges and titles that raise you above other users? Maybe I have more experience than you in categories. I am able to tell you that I edit them since three years. Nobody can understand every process or edit in Wikipedia, but If I don't understand something, I don't blockade or revert it, I let people do what they know best.
You are saying, that, purely by changing a mother category, I am changing the category structure, which is not true but shows a lack of understanding on your part. An allegory: I have two categories "American scientists" and "British scientists" in the mother category "Scientists". If I put them now instead in the newly created category "Scientists by nationality", I created a logical category between an old mother category and their former subcategories. This is not changing the category system, as is its established for a long time actually, that we sort people not only by occupation but also by nationality. It is done with musicians, so there is no problem doing the same automatically for scientists. We don't need a discussion here, as this is not a renaming, deletion or merging process, but more a natural expanding of the system by its rules. This is exactly what I did. I beg you to go there and look at it. If every user would ask for consensus in a process like this, Wikipedia could not exist.
I sincerely wish you a nice day. CN1 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I seem to partially misunderstood what you are doing. Objection to everything but the use of parentheses withdrawn. I don't know if the category is really even needed for the 10/233 categories that would go there, but if so, the category should be Genres by nationality or Music by genre and nationality. (I think the former makes more sense.) I don't know what honor badges and titles you are talking about; I don't have barnstars or the like plastered on my userpage. Since your account is less than two years old with less than 300 edits, I'm going to assume that you did most of this work before creating your account. — JJMC89 05:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
So I will go ahead and fill the category up again, I already listed it in CFD to be speed renamed without brackets. CN1 (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


I see you reverted his/her edits, actually I wonder if it is not a sockpuppet for the blocked multi-accounts Josephina Obama. --Minorities observer (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Minorities observer: I'm not familiar with that LTA case. It could be, or it could be someone trying to game the system for WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Is there a particular sock of Nipponese Dog Calvero that has made many whitespace changes like Ultraman87 has or has other similarities with previous socks? I noticed Josephina Obama had some whiteapce only edits. — JJMC89 20:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not familiar with this, but I noticed the same type of irrelevant edits on the same article Unicameralism by both Josephine Obama and Ultraman87 on 12 and 13 March. I fail to understand the motivation of all these edits, actually... --Minorities observer (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Minorities observer: That's probably just a coincidence. Josephina Obama needed to make 10 edits to become autoconfirmed in order to edit Peter Nguyen Van Hung, which is semiprotected. Ultraman87 has surpassed that already. I'm guessing that Ultraman87 is trying to get 500 edits in order to edit an article covered under WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. — JJMC89 22:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Hi JJMC89. Something you added to the above page is causing it to appear in Category:Requested RD1 redactions. Can you have a look please and see if you can figure out what it is? Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa.   Fixed. There is a {{copyvio-revdel}} in there. — JJMC89 22:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI deletion

I'm an admin now? Awesome! :) (You beat me to it by the way!) RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you know? I guess you must have breezed through your RFA and not remember it.   — JJMC89 16:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I've only just noticed that the task was approved. I see some progress has been made, but no edits by your bot for more than a week. Is there a problem? Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I just haven't had time at home to start the task since it was approved two days ago. I'll try to start it tonight (UTC-7). — JJMC89 15:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, it must be just the trial edits that I saw then. Okay, thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ: The bot task is complete. Please redirect {{WikiProjectBanners}}. (I'm not a template editor.) — JJMC89 02:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Still a few transclusions? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I see these all have |collapsed= defined. I will redirect now ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  The Original Barnstar
With thanks for helping us finally clean up the banner shell templates! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Straightening out curlies

Thanks again for your help with my template. I notice you removed all spaces between braces. As a noob, }}}}}}}}} is a pretty opaque, whereas I am much more able to visually parse }} }}} }} }} and read its structure in relation to the rest of the statement. Are spaces dodgy programmatically, or is this more a matter of style? Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Phil wink: It's a matter of style. In this case the spaces would be fine. Also, Similar changes can be made for <poem>...</poem> as was done for <ref>...</ref>, so that <poem>...</poem> don't have to be used in each instance. I can go through the sandbox and make that and some other adjustments if you like. — JJMC89 21:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks. I think that would be a big improvement, and I'd be happy to see further improvements. It's currently only being transcluded in a couple of user-space test locations so far, so I can easily clean up the parameters in its few instances. One thing I was going to ask was... The real template ({{Sonnet}}) used to be based on a floating table structure, then recently was updated to be based upon a {{quote box}} structure. This was clearly a more elegant solution to the needs then, but the tricks I'm trying to pull now require more granular control of rows and columns than (as far as I can see) {{quote box}} affords -- so I've gone back to the floating table structure. The question is: I think some parts of that revived code are pretty old... do you see anything that I've brought back that is deprecated, or dicey in any way? (But maybe that was implicit in your offer for "other adjustments".) Phil wink (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Phil wink: I changed all the {{{param|<poem>...</poem>}}} to {{#tag:poem|{{{param|...}}}}}, so <poem>...</poem> doesn't need to be used when transcluding the template. I also moved the example text out of the template code. The documentation should be moved to Template:Sonnet/doc when {{Sonnet}} is replaced. {{Quote box}} probably shouldn't have been used since its documentation says not to use it in articles. The code looks good to me. Consider using different parameter names. The only one that I know what it is for is |S=. Maybe use |footnote= or |source=. Something else to consider is that other templates that use a parameter to include a reference, expect the value to have <ref>...</ref>. This would also allow for shortened footnotes (templates like {{sfn}}) that don't get wrapped in <ref>...</ref> to be used. If this referencing style isn't being used then it doesn't matter. Will |Q= and/or |L= ever be anything other than the default? — JJMC89 06:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again!
  • Regarding {{quote box}} (not that it matters now), I believe the prohibition is simply to avoid the use of this "fancy" manner of quoting in articles and to encourage "plain" <blockquote>...</blockquote> instead. Because this structure was being repurposed, effectively as a container for an infobox, I think the use was well within the spirit of the law.
  • Agree on parameter names; I'll make them human-readable.
  • Yes, in 2 out of 154 cases... TWO!.... the sonnets have nonstandard lineation and rhyme scheme, hence the parameterized side-apparatus.
  • I expect only to use full references, but if putting the <ref>...</ref> into the value will make the template more standardized (as well as flexible for possible future uses) then I think that's the way to go. I should be able to do that myself.
I may have more questions later, but first I've got to go through the new code and make sure I understand it. Phil wink (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the template and documentation are pretty tight now. Several years ago, an automated update was performed to improve the transclusions of this template. (The discussion is here if you care... I don't know if this is even still the proper venue.) I wonder if the same thing can be done again now. The process would be considerably more complex in this case. What do you think? I'm happy to write up the update in detail, but would you be willing to look over my shoulder, and ensure that it is adequately descriptive? and maybe point me (if you know) to the person or group I should ask? First, I'm going to try to get some consensus for the change (which I expect will consist of no one saying either "no" or "yes"), then work on the update itself. Of course if this just has to be done manually, I can do that too. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Phil wink: I don't think the task is particularly well suited for a bot. It would be better as an AWB task or done manually. Yes, please post to the WikiProjects. As long as there is consensus, even a silent one, we can proceed. I think it should be fairly straightforward to make the changes, and since I'm already familiar with the template, I'm willing to process the changes. I would just ask that you handle the two special cases manually. — JJMC89 05:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Very good. I've posted notes at WT:BARD, WT:POETRY, and Talk:Sonnet 18 (which I believe to be the most heavily-watched Sonnet). Since I don't know what AWB's exact capabilities are, I'm going to rattle off all the exceptional cases I can think of, just in case any raise red flags with you.
  • All sonnet articles are named uniformly (Sonnet 1, Sonnet 2... up to 154), and all have the template at or near the top. However, the template exists on some other pages (mostly my own user space). I assume you'll ignore these and I can check them out manually, to see if anything needs doing.
  • One page (Sonnet 18) has no image in the template. For those that do, you should not port the pixel widths currently provided in the individual templates; let the new template apply its default, and I'll clean up if necessary.
  • A few pages have 2 versions of the text within the template typically each with its own bold (sometimes linked) heading, a few have citations inline with the sonnet text. My assumption is that you'll treat this all as one big undifferentiated |4= value, and let me sort it out manually. (E.g. for your purposes, none of the existing templates will have a |source=, even though a handful of them actually do.)
  • And yes, I will certainly clean up the |stanzas= and |linenumbers= (formerly "Q" & "L") values where necessary.
Meanwhile, I'll let you know if any interesting discussion occurs. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
It's now been a few weekdays + a weekend, and there's been no discussion. We can wait longer if you like, but I don't think more time will yield any more talk. Since you know what you're doing, I'll stay out of the way and only make supplementary edits as you direct. If it's not a problem, I would like the privilege of updating the template page itself -- uh, because I'm vain -- but I'll wait on that until you direct me, too. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Phil wink: I have some visual and usage improvements that I would like the make to the template before rolling it out. I'll put them in a userspace sandbox for your thoughts before I merge them into the current sandbox. In any case, I hope to be able to roll it out towards the end of the week. Depending on the final form of the template, I may have to make a transitional version to use while I roll the changes out to prevent disruption to the articles. — JJMC89 06:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Very exciting. I trust you have your own solutions, but I was thinking about how I'd manage this update myself (before you got involved), and my best solution was: for the main update point all pages to {{Sonnet/sandbox}}, then update the {{Sonnet}} code, then re-point all pages to {{Sonnet}}. It's twice as many page edits, but definitely zero user disruption. I don't know what your visual plans are, but if they involve accommodating 2 texts or headings or in-text citations (all evident, for example, at Sonnet 14), I would counsel against that. These are all elements that I believe don't belong in the first place; in the short term I can suppress |stanzas= and |linenumbers= in these cases (since they won't align correctly), and in the medium term I plan to re-enter and cite all texts, which will get them back to a simple state. Phil wink (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Phil wink: I was considering basing it on {{Infobox}}. That would have allowed for headings and multiple text versions. I would have had to nest HTML tables inside it though. I might make some small adjustments to it but you can take a look at my sandbox in comparison to {{Sonnet/sandbox}}.

Parameters and changes
| number        = <!-- Optional, overrides automatic detection of the sonnet page transcluded on -->
| image         = <!-- See Module:InfoboxImage and/or Template:Infobox person -->
| image_size    = <!-- See Module:InfoboxImage and/or Template:Infobox person -->
| image_upright = <!-- See Module:InfoboxImage and/or Template:Infobox person -->
| alt           = <!-- See Module:InfoboxImage and/or Template:Infobox person -->
| caption       = <!-- Image caption -->
| stanzas       = 
| line_numbers  = 
| sonnet_text   = 
| source        = 
  • Named parameters
  • Use Module:InfoboxImage
  • Detect the page being transcluded on
    • The sonnet number is optional
    • Uses Module:String to parse the pagename to create links to the previous and next sonnets when the number isn't provided

I don't know if I'm happy with then name |sonnet_text=. I'm more than happy to write up the /doc when this is finalized. Thoughts? As for rolling it out, I'll code a special version into {{Sonnet}} to use during the roll out which can be replaced with the sandbox when I'm done. — JJMC89 02:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, here's the point where I go from greatful noob to demanding client. (For reference, my test (using your subpage) is at: User:Phil wink/sandbox6#JJMC89 test.) NOTE: I've just now put 2 test instances on a new doc page for your user-space version, so it will be easier to visually test stuff. Phil wink (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Image size: There will be some default embiggening of the image. Just from "MOS:IMGSIZE" it's not clear exactly what level your objection was at. If you simply prefer, e.g. "upright=1.6", then yes, we can do that. If you are asserting that no default should be set in the template, I disagree profoundly and am happy to discuss why. Ideally, the image width would be programmatically set to the width of the whole box as displayed to the individual user (minus, say, 10 px), but I expect that's just pie-in-the-sky.
  • Caption: Your removal of the "thumb" apparatus (while perhaps good in itself) has created a visual problem which I have begun to solve -- inexpertly. I'll mention my thinking in hopes that you know of a better solution. 1st: I felt the sans of the caption clashed badly with the serif of the text. 2nd: The caption now seemed that it might equally apply to the text; and while the picture is "Sonnet 70 in the 1609 Quarto", the text explicitly is not -- it is a modernized edition from about 3 centuries later. The "thumb" formatting prevented both these problems by clearly placing the caption and text in visually separate domains. This is what I'm trying to realize with the font shrinkage and dashes (I even tried putting in a fleuron... probably a non-starter, but just for fun, consider replacing my break+rule with something like <br />[[File:Floral heart.svg|x20px]]). Total separation (e.g. putting a bottom border on the caption's row of the table) is, I think, far too strong. I find my solution acceptable, but I'm not enthusiastic about it. Ideas?
  • I see nothing wrong with "sonnet_text". I might have just gone with "text", but as that could describe no fewer than 4 elements of template, it's probably insufficiently explicit.
  • Previously, I had the serif texts set at higher than 100%, and gradually reduced them back down to the current 100%. I'm now thinking that perhaps they should be bumped back up (just a bit to, say, 110%). Thoughts? At least on WP, serif texts that are in principle equal in size to sans texts still tend to look a touch smaller to me; further, the articles repeatedly refer to words, lines, and sections of the text, so I consider the sonnet_text not to be a nice adjunct to the articles, but a central feature which users may refer back to multiple times while reading.
Thanks again. Phil wink (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I just happened to look at User:JJMC89/sandbox/template/1 in Mobile view, and the images fail to center, even though they center correctly in Desktop view. This is a mystery to me, as the examples at {{Infobox person}} appear to center correctly regardless of view. I'm not super distressed about this, but I thought you'd like to know. Phil wink (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Since I see you haven't immediately rejected my idea of fleurons (I assumed no one would share that enthusiasm!) I'll mention that I've put a couple additional tests at the above-mentioned-and-struck-out User:Phil wink/sandbox6#JJMC89 test. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The image size should not be set in the template or on the sonnet pages. Setting the size doesn't respect user preferences. If a user's preference is set to 120px, you are forcing it to be larger. The user might a slow internet connection. If a user's preference is set to 400px, you are forcing it to be smaller. The user might have poor sight and thus need the images to be larger. The image sizes are intended to vary based on user preference. I don't think any image scaling should be done, but if it is to be done it should be done with upright as it will scale with a user's preference selection. I suggest testing with different preference options set. I think this might be a good fit as a separator under the caption. I made some fontsize changes; however, note that the 125% for the poem is the same as 100% was previously due to another change. I'm not a fan of large fonts but I guess you could increase it some. Please consider the font size, color, and font family sections of the MOS. I fixed the centering issue. Another thing to note about mobile is that the line numbers and stanza indicators are not likely to align with the text. I might be able to find a way to hide them in mobile. — JJMC89 05:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to re-evaluate where this template is headed. Your earlier work was really helpful (and I quite like your suggested rule graphic), but it seems to me that the addition of the infobox elements has been a setback. You've already spent a lot of time (and more is required) fixing problems they caused, but I'm genuinely unaware of any problems they've solved. Currently, we have a template where

  • We have to set fonts to 125% to get them to be 100%.
  • Lines wrap in mobile view. This is already a disqualifier to me, but it is exacerbated by the fact that, while desktop view of the new template pre-shrinks text (so that, as stated, we need 125% to get to 100%) mobile view does not, so we're getting text that is wildly enlarged -- and thus wraps much more than it should have to, even assuming a narrow box!
  • Line spacing has somehow been squished to about 73% of what it was, such that a sonnet which in the old template had a W:H ratio of 10:11 now is 10:8. This decreases both the poem's visual aesthetics and legibility, and the space it saves -- vertical space -- is the unconstrained dimension, even in mobile view.

Problems like these suggest that the basic assumptions of the infobox elements -- include many stacked discrete labeled elements, shrink content, wrap content to maintain narrow table -- are actually contrary to the needs of the sonnet template. We are displaying verse, not housing data. I hate to think of you spending a lot of time and energy turning this ferret into a horse when we've already got a donkey to work with. Are there, indeed, any actual problems with {{Sonnet/sandbox}} as it now stands that you think we need to solve? Phil wink (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Phil wink: I did a partial revert to remove the infobox class and selectively apply only the table style from it. (This fixes the font sizing and should fix the line spacing.) The line wrapping occurs in all versions of the template. Additionally I removed the font family per MOS:FONTFAMILY and darkened the color for the stanzas and line numbers per MOS:CONTRAST. The sonnet text could be italicized if desired. Per MOS:IMGSIZE, lead images should usually use upright=1.35 at most. — JJMC89 03:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Please stop helping. Phil wink (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

you may want to report the ip addresses reverting your edits on Oshwah

just a thought. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You removed a category

Hi, may I ask the reason why you removed the category "Computer-aided engineering" from this article: ? It is the most relevant for it, as it is a CAE platform. I'm happy to give you more information if you need it. Thank you! Andreea Zaha (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreea Zaha (talkcontribs) 09:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed it because it is already in a subcategory, Category:Computer-aided engineering software. — JJMC89 15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, OK, thank you!

May I also ask which are the parts written as advertisement? I made some edits to fix it but it seems you restored the tag. I'm open to change more details, just point them out to me, please.Andreea Zaha (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits

Thank you very much for the effort you put to edit the page. May I now remove the "advertisement" tag?Andreea Zaha (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting banned users

See [1]. This banned user is prone to doing necessary vandalism reverts before moving on to other activities. So you have to be careful to check all of his edits before hitting the rollback button -- most of the reverts were right -- but this one takes a little more care to revert than your average sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Courcelles: I reviewed a sample of them. After said banned user messaged me on Commons, I had intended to check all of my reverts and revert myself as necessary; however, you beat me to it. Thanks. I'll be more careful in the future. — JJMC89 04:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing for class

Hello, I've been assigned Elizabeth Hanson to research for my history class and part of the assignment is writing a Wikipedia article about her. I see you've already been hard at work and would like to add some information if you are comfortable with that. I have some other sources I would like to include as well. The due date is Friday and I'll upload my version then if I don't hear otherwise. Great work and glad we share an interest in Elizabeth Hanson.Jacquelyncs (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jacquelyncs: I'm not sure what article you're talking about. I have not edited Elizabeth Hanson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 04:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2016/March".