User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2017/October

Untitled by NAOFC

Hey, first of all thank you for reviewing my pages Live at the Jerash Festival 2004 and The Best of Nancy Clips. I saw that you have redirected the first one to Nancy Ajram and the second to Nancy Ajram videography. The articles were about an official live album and video album by the singer and I provided reliable sources to them. I have read the policy and still don't understand why they have been redirected. Can you please return it back as an articles and I will fix them to fit Wikipedia policy? Thank you so much. (NAOFC (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC))

No. Community consensus is that they are not notable. Lack of notability cannot be overcome by editing. — JJMC89 16:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:East Rail Line RDT

Hi, I noticed an error in Template:East Rail Line RDT from your bots edit yesterday with File:BSicon_KtBHFeg.svg being a non existent file. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, KylieTastic. I've reverted the edit and stopped the task until I can debug. — JJMC89 21:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

It can take a village to take down a promotional account. Thanks for your attentiveness! Cheers

‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! — JJMC89 04:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Deprod: He Who Dreams

Hello, I have deprodded He Who Dreams because once a prod tag is removed it can't be re-added, even if it was removed in bad faith. The purported sockmaster of the accounts that removed the prod tag is blocked, not banned, so the exceptions under WP:DEPROD don't apply. Please feel free to open an AFD - I will not object to deletion using that forum. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

See WT:PROD#Deprods by blocked users and the resulting edit. — JJMC89 04:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I just took a look at that and will keep it in mind when prod patrolling in the future. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

COI Requests

Hi JJMC89. I was wondering if you had the time to review one or two COI requests.[1][2] They are both items I would expect to take a bit of time, but even if you only have time for one, it would be greatly appreciated. CorporateM (Talk) 21:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to respond to this. It looks like Sphilbrick has addressed Bain & Company and Guy Macon Kaspersky Lab. — JJMC89 21:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Why

Why did you remove the information off art research center (Philboyxp (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not the center's website; it is an encyclopedia. — JJMC89 20:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

nothing is wrong with the beginning statement please stop messing with it... everything is 100 percent factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philboyxp (talk • contribs) 21:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Page move of Equestrian statue of King Chulalongkorn

Hi. On 4 October you moved the page Equestrian statue of King Chulalongkorn to Equestrian statue of Chulalongkorn per a technical RM request by User:Neve-selbert. However, unlike the other articles in that request, this article was never moved by Neve-selbert, so the reason "Revert move (which I made)" did not apply. Since the discussion at Talk:Statue of Charles II, Soho Square was specific to that article and there didn't appear to be consensus to apply the naming to other articles, I don't think the move should have been done uncontested. Per WP:BRD, please consider reverting the move for now. (Also, you left Talk:Equestrian statue of King Chulalongkorn, which has incoming links, as a red link.) --Paul_012 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've reverted the move per your request. — JJMC89 20:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of label

Hello,

You placed a $ undisclosed COI label on Conduit (company). I think you didn't take the time to review the Talk page and history. The Talk page has two edit requests made by me where I clearly disclose my paid COI.

But then there is a voluminous archive of other requests, discussions, which contain many disclosures: Talk:Conduit (company)/Archive 1

Go back to 19 August 2015 and you will see that an admin moved the article draft from my sandbox after I requested an independent review because I had a COI. There are various discussion of the COI tags. Then the article was moved around and renamed various times, where it may have lost some of its Talk history, but I think the bulk of it is in the archived discussions.

There was a big fight when an editor started making deletions and putting up flags, who I felt was using a sock puppet account to attack the article. I brought this to an admin discussion Board at the time, as I disclosed my paid COI, and this other editor was making changes without making any disclosures.

In other words, this is one of the most disclosed paid COI articles you'll ever find. BC1278 (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello BC1278. Per the edit summary when I tagged the article, it had nothing to do with you. It was part of a mass tagging of articles edited by the Jeremy112233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) sockfarm. I've reviewed the history and removed the tag. — JJMC89 20:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia email

Moved from my email inbox since it does not need to be discussed privately

Hey JJMC89,

Hope you're doing well.

I came across your user page doing some research as I noticed you edited Meek Mill's page recently.

I am working on a blog about Wikipedia and wanted to see if this is something you’d be open to getting involved with. It is a blog that will talk about best practices on Wikipedia, put the spotlight on Wikipedians, etc. If you’re interested, feel free to email me back: (Redacted) and we can discuss further. Looking forward to it.

I also have some opportunities for paid editing (in accordance with guidelines, of course) that I wanted to discuss. Let me know. CMCreator900 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

My editing of that article was to revert the dog and rapper vandal. I am not interested in getting involved in the blog. I do not and will not edit Wikipedia for pay. — JJMC89 20:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Teairra Marí

Hi, I just wanna say that I don't like how you guys keep deleting all of the Teairra Marí stuff when they are LITERALLY notable..... I hope you approve of me being the one to make all of the Teairra Marí articles notable because it's unfair how Rihanna gets all of the attention and Teairra doesn't so I'll be making the articles notable now and I'll prevent vandalism also so I just wanna be 100 Percent with you if your gonna support me on what i believe in.... Anyways, tata! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsdebut8 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe if you followed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines you would have less problems. Your disruptive editing, BLP violations, personal attacks, original research, and lack of understanding of notability and reliable sourcing will surely get you blocked. — JJMC89 20:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MrWriter245 Meters (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Phi Gamma Delta

I believe that I was the person to request this edit notice, but I just noticed that I didn't change something when I requested it. Could the second bullet point please be changed from "To hide the images" to "To hide the letters". If I need to formally request this elsewhere, please let me know.Naraht (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference, you can make edit requests on the talk page by using {{edit template-protected}}. — JJMC89 15:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Tags for sock farm?

Hey JJMC89,

Can you tell me what's going on here? I looked at some of these articles and they don't appear to be obvious paid editing. -- Dane ^talk 23:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dane. I mass tagged all the articles from that sock farm based on Bri's list. See the COIN archive for background. Some thought {{COI}} may have been better, but I didn't change them from {{UPE}} and don't know if anyone else changed any. Many of the relevant edits may be in the article histories, i.e. page creation. If nothing remains of Jeremy112233's edits the template can be removed. — JJMC89 00:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and explanation :-). Makes sense. -- Dane ^talk 00:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

+AP

Hi JJMC89, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 10:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This is primarily for all the technical type work you do that requires patrolling, if you do plan to creating brand-new entire articles and would like the benefits of new page patrol reviews we can turn this off. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, xaosflux. — JJMC89 15:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Bot changes damage formatting

Hi JJMC89, some (or many?) of your bot's changes marked with "(WP:NFCC#10c: Non-free use rationale missing for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation. Questions? Ask here.)" between 2017-05-22 and 23 have damaged/destroyed the paragraph's formatting and should be corrected. The damage is, by converting the first part of a paragraph into a comment, to leave leading spaces in front of the remaining words which let the whole paragraph show as a text/code box. Please see the changes to Lona Cohen and Morris Cohen on 2017-05-22 at 10:44 and 10:58 am. I'm, obviously, only concerned abut similar damaging changes to other lemmas that have NOT been reverted or corrected already. I could not identify all of these places manually because there are so many bot changes.

Second, related point: hundreds and hundreds of your bot's automatic and fast changes have to be resolved manually, when/if a fair use rationale is given later or earlier. Please revert, if you could, your changes automatically where "a valid fair use rationale" is existing now, because one should not load the burden of reverting these changes to poor humans. Many of these changes were and have had to be manually reverted by humans already, with the remark "resolved", after "fair use" was documented for the media file in question, but, unfortunately, many may take a too long time until this is done manually, and high effort. Olaffri (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The bot did exactly what it was programmed to do, replace non-compliant file usage with a commented out copy of that usage. (FYI: Although still approved, this task is not running.) A valid rationale has to be created manually. If an editor writes such a rationale, they are more than capable of restoring the image to the article. In many (most?) cases a compliant rationale cannot be written. — JJMC89 20:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

My main hint to you/problem was that the bot damages/destroys the formatting in some cases. Isn't there a way to automatically fix these bot-induced problems and avoid them in the future by improving the bot programming? The problems occur where a picture/file link forms the first part of a line/paragraph, followed by a space: your bot comments out the link only (without the space) and leaves the space as the new first part of the line; the wiki software now displays the remainder of the line in/as a text/code box, which is unintended and should be corrected, don't you think so? Olaffri (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello JJMC89, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Your BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 14, has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing so many instances of WP:JR/SR. The unnecessary commas are a huge pet peeve of mine so I'm happy to see a bot going to work on this. Marquardtika (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Marquardtika, but I can't take much credit. Thank those who worked on the list of pages at WP:AWB/Tasks#Comma before Jr. and Sr.. — JJMC89 01:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)