User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2023/January

Happy New Year, JJMC89!

Happy New Year!

JJMC89,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy Fourth Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing JJMC89 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JJMC89!

Happy New Year!

JJMC89,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello JJMC89: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Please throttle the bot draftification tagger

Can you add a built in delay of a day or so to the draftification tagger task of the bot? I made an error in a round-robin move and moved the article instead of the redirect to draft space. It was fixed within a short time, but by then the bot had already tagged it. I only discovered the {{Drafts moved from mainspace}} tag in the article (after it was in mainspace again) by accident. It's just a tracking tag to populate a report, right? It doesn't seem like something that needs to be tagged immediately. Mathglot (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

While I could, it is not a trivial change to do so. (Delayed tagging means it needs to figure out when it was moved instead of just using the current date.) It was intentionally written and approved to tag draftifications rapidly. The template doesn't do anything in mainspace, and it would have automatically been removed at the end of the day. I'm not sure who is using the categories or for what. @BD2412: any thoughts? — JJMC89 22:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The basic idea is that generally, when a draft is moved from mainspace, it is for a good reason, and AFC reviewers should be aware that the draft was moved from mainspace when asked to put it back there. We have sometimes seen a draftified article immediately and without change submitted for restoration to mainspace, or moved back by an editor who is not a regular AFC reviewer (typically one involved in the creating the draftified article in the first place, or a precocious low-participation new editor). In short, it is useful to tag these quickly to avoid shenanigans. BD2412 T 23:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there any harm from having the tag "moved to Draftspace" present even when it's back in mainspace? If not, then I guess it really doesn't matter. Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

No, there isn't. The template only adds a category if it is the draft namespace. — JJMC89 23:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, well then I guess it doesn't matter. Thanks for the responses. Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Recipients of the National Order of the Lion

Hi @JJMC89 A WP:DRV process is going on here about the categories that you have recently deleted FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Why was I notified of desysopping by your bot?

Hi, your bot recently warned me about being desysopped based on having "fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period", but I have 100 edits in the last 30 months. By my math, I'd need to go completely inactive for 2.5 years to be at risk from the policy. Is there a bug in the bot, or am I actually at risk? —dgies^t_c 18:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. The reason you received the reminder is the second sentence. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years. — JJMC89 20:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. —dgies^t_c 22:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Squirrel Plush Toy.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Squirrel Plush Toy.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 20#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg

You probably weren't aware of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 20#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg, but it did establish a consensus in favor of also using File:Brazilian Football Confederation logo.svg in the men's national team article; so, another FFD is probably needed to overturn than discussion. In addition, you might want to take a look at c:User talk:Explicit#File:Brazil National Football Team (no stars).svg because if File:Brazil National Football Team (no stars).svg turns out to be OK for Commons, then the same logo with stars most likely would also be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't. While similar, File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg and File:Brazilian Football Confederation logo.svg are not the same logo. — JJMC89 05:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please stop adding deletion notices/FFD notices now!

Can you please stop adding deletion notices/FFD notices now! 93.41.126.48 (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No. — JJMC89 05:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Bangladesh national football team logo.png

Hello, JJMC89! I saw you just deleted the File:Bangladesh national football team logo.png file. Are not the deletation supposed to happen after seven days of the tag? But it's been just three days. I don't get it. Also, I wanted to have a discussion first at the file's talk page and therefore I started the discussion as per the instructions. But you just came and deleted it in a hurry. Diptadg17 (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You don't get to just ignore the outcome of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 December 14#File:Bangladesh Football Federation.svg. WP:DRV is the appropriate venue to dispute the outcome, not reuploading another copy of the logo. — JJMC89 07:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, the administrator panel too don't get to ignore the fact that there are two national team articles without their badge just because they want to 'minimize' the use of the logo. Anyway, I will look this into DRV. But I am still interested to know why the logo is deleted before seven days. Regards. Diptadg17 (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

GxR18

They seem to understand why you blocked them now. What do you think about their unblock request? Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment) Adding my two cents here just to point out that they reverted the bot four (possibly five times). So, even if they do now understand WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts and WP:NFCC#9, it's not clear whether they are aware of WP:EW and WP:3RR. The edit summaries left by JJMC89 bot usually contain a link to WP:MCQ where users can ask for help when the bot does something they don't understand; however, that doesn't seem to be the case here. Regardless, after one or perhaps two reverts, things might not be so clear, but at some point you need to realize that edit warring with a bot is futile because a bot isn't going to stop doing what it has been tasked to do until it no longer has a task to do. In addition, even if you want to AGF when it comes to something like this, another newly created account EQ28 shows up out of nowhere to also revert the bot, and perhaps it's a sock. The 3RR and possible socking should probably be addressed as well by the blocked user since those are things that can become serious problems down the road. On a side note, adding WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts or a link MCQ to the bot's edit summary (if possible) for cases like this might be worth considering. NFCC#9 only states that non-free content may only be used in articles and only in the article namespace, and some people working on drafts might see their efforts as working on an "article" and might not understand the meaning of "namespace". Perhaps it's also time to discuss adding an {{efn}} to NFCC#9 to literally spell-out what "article namespace" means instead of hoping people click on the Wikilink. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Linguists from....

Not sure what's up, but yesterday the bot moved articles from Category:Linguists from the United States to Category:American linguists per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Then today is moving them back based on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 13#Linguists by nationality. Which is correct? Skyerise (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Given there was a CFD on the latter that's the one there's a consensus for. It was changed without consensus to the former as if it were a "speedy" decision, and then undid as there was not precedent for that change (Category:Polish linguists is amiguous between linguists who study the Polish language, irrespective of nationality, and linguists who themselves are from Poland.) Umimmak (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

MicroEJ

I am an AfC reviewer and I'd like to accept Draft:MicroEJ. Would you kindly remove create protection. I believe the issues discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MicroEJ are addressed in this new version. ~Kvng (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Done by ToBeFree in my absence (Thanks!) — JJMC89 21:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism by M.Kalita

M.Kalita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated Vandalism after several warnings. Refer:[1],[2],[3] Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you reported this to me, especially since I wasn't active at the time. In any case, HJ Mitchell took care of it. (Thanks!) — JJMC89 21:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed Black Box New Logo

Hi @JJMC89, as @JJMC89 bot has removed approved logo update on Black Box Corporation stating - No valid non-free use rationale for this page, please see the non-free use rationale for the black box new logo here File:Blackbox logo.png.

The new logo update request was approved by @EchidnaLives at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_upload&oldid=1134733546#Black_Box_Corporation_Logo.png

If the mentioned rationale is valid, request you to kindly revert your change or if further information is required for the new logo update request to be validated, please let me know.

(I work at Black Box Corporation (disclosed on my user page) and hence following the COI policy, won't be able to make direct edits or reverts.)

Thank you. Regards, Techsap25 (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Techsap25 I have readded the logo, as it has a suitable non-free rationale. :) echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Techsap25 (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

EchidnaLives filled out the rationale template incorrectly. |Article= should be the name of the the article, not a URL. In any case, I updated the license and moved it to Commons. — JJMC89 00:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Hope moving the file to Commons will resolve the issue or if required I can request the uploader (EchidnaLives) to rectify the non-free use rationale. Regards, Techsap25 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Help me

Good evening (maybe morning for your country). Please give me free from IP blocking status. I'm not active in enwiki because I use uzbek wikipedia more than enwiki. I use english articles for translate and develop uzbek wikipedia with templates and etc. Unfortunately my IP was blocked twice. It's my working PC and our main proxy use vpn, so please help me not to block with my IP.

p.s. if I can't explain it enough, sorry my english is not good as native(((( Panpanchik (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions that you linked to. — JJMC89 05:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Please do not edit my userpage again, as you did here. Thank you. Best wishes. 京都御所 (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't. If you didn't violate policy, it wouldn't be necessary. — JJMC89 18:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Your bot did, and it wasn't welcome. Userpages are not for everyone to edit. 京都御所 (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I know. Welcome or not, you aren't permitted to violate policy, even on your userpage. — JJMC89 18:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This is slanderous. I have not violated any policy, surely your bot is not infallible and may have made a mistake? 京都御所 (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You did. Your userpage displayed a non-free image (File:Kane Tanaka 117.webp) that was added by you, and non-free images are only permitted in articles (WP:NFCC#9). — JJMC89 18:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

False. If you had read my userpage, you would know the file used is different and that it is designed very clearly as an article. Best wishes. 京都御所 (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It isn't false. I already linked to the edit where you added that file, and you linked to the edit where it was removed. You actually added it a second time before replacing it with a free image. It doesn't matter if it the page is designed like an article, it isn't one since it is in userspace. (You need to fix your signature so that you don't need to double edit all of the time.) — JJMC89 19:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I do not believe that you are right, but let's leave it at that before this spirals out of control. Best wishes. 京都御所 (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Believe what you like – the diffs and policy are clear. — JJMC89 20:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia has backlog problems so edit history can be tainted. 京都御所 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Backlogs have nothing to do with page histories. — JJMC89 20:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

False. Best wishes. 京都御所 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

If you think that is false, then you don't have the competence to edit here. — JJMC89 20:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi 京都御所. You might want to take a look at WP:UP#OWN, WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:UP#Non-free files for reference. The bot seems to have done exactly what it has been approved to do. As for you comment about an edit history being possibly "tainted", I don't think that's technically possible. However, if you have a specific example of this other than any edits having to do with the above file, then please provide some more information about it so that it can be examined. If such a thing has happened, it would indicate there's a serious problem that needs to be brought to the attention of those who take care of the technical side of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJJMC89%2Ftopicons&diff=next&oldid=876336546&diffmode=source Points for adding that it is intentional, but can you please describe what it is for as well ? This is hella confusing and causing people to file bug reports. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It is to override template-provided short descriptions that I don't want (e.g., from {{user page}}) since there is no way to force no description. — JJMC89 22:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

TheDJ: The supported way to force no description is {{short description|none}}. Because {{user page}} sets |2=noreplace, a local (lack of) description should override that template. Unfortunately, this does not work, because a short description of "none" produces a nowiki tag instead of an actual empty short description. See this discussion and this previous discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Supersonic business jet

I had an interesting interaction with your bot. The article Supersonic business jet has wlinks to specific proposed aircraft; most of these articles have an artist's illustration of the proposed aircraft in the article's infobox. I created a Gallery section in Supersonic business jet comprised of these illustrations. Your bot took most of them away. I have no problem if these are true violations, but why are the same illustrations allowed to exist in the linked articles in the infoboxes? Is the bot defective in this regard? If not, if the original wiki articles are not a violation, should this be blocked somehow?

Personally, I hate hate hate being told I have committed a violation in Wikipedia when all I have done is copy something from somewhere else in Wikipedia. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Tfdavisatsnetnet. Did you see the edit summary that the bot left when it removed the files? It contained a link to WP:NFC#Implementation. If you click on that link, you'll see that a non-free file requires two things: (1) a file copyright license and (2) a separate and specific non-free use rationale for each use. Basically, one of the things this bot has been tasked to do is to remove non-free files that lack a separate specific non-free use rationale from either all or some of their uses per WP:NFCCE and WP:NFCC#10c. When you added the files to the article, you most likely failed to add a separate specific rationale to each file's respective page to explain how said file's non-free use in Supersonic business jet satisfies Wikiepdia's non-free content use policy. Most if not all non-free files onlyu need a single copyright license regardless of how many times the file is being used, but a non-free use rationale is needed because not all non-free uses are identical. The bot detected this and removed the files. So, don't "hate" on the bot because your did violate relevant policy and the bot was just doing its job so to speak. You can stop the bot from removing the files by simply adding the required rationale for the way you want use the file to its file's page. However, this is a big hurdle that you will need to overcome in order for such a use to be considered policy compliant.

There are ten non-free use criteria each use of a non-free file needs to staisfy in order for it to be considered a policy-compliant use. Satisfying only just one or some is not sufficient. In my opinion, the way you would like to use these files is going to have a hard time meeting WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. Non-free images are almost never allowed to be used in image galleries for the reasons given in WP:NFG because such uses are almost always considered to be WP:DECORATIVE, because such images are almost always being used in some other article and a link to said article is typically considered sufficient per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#Number of items, and because there's often very little sourced critical commentary of the image itself to help meet WP:NFC#CS. These are things that the bot is incapable of assessing, but are often reasons why such non-free uses end up being discussed at WP:FFD or tagged with the template {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} when assessed by human file reviewers or bot operators. To sum up, adding the missing non-free use rationales will stop the bot, but said non-free use rationales are going to need to be really quite strongly based in policy to avoid the files being removed for other reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

So the bottom line here is that Wikipedia has policies (i.e. "...because such images are almost always being used in some other article and a link to said article is typically considered sufficient per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#Number of items, and because there's often very little sourced critical commentary of the image itself to help meet WP:NFC#CS") that are so arcane it becomes impossible for good faith editing to avoid violation of something, or at least without a very daunting investment. I have one college degree already, and I don't want another in Wikipedia policies. Once again I see that Wikipedia is turning into an environment that requires a high priesthood to function. I have no problem with this, as long as the high priests don't make aspersions (e.g. "YOU ARE IN VIOLATION - [sotto voice] good faith what's that?"): I would argue that such aspersions violate the Five Pillars (in fact a deep and overly complex web of policies is a direct violation of Pillar Three, "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute").

BTW, I don't hate the bot, as you write it was just doing its job. I was concerned it was defective. You have pointed out why it can never avoid inconsistencies, and I DO hate such inconsistencies, even if they are unavoidable. Thank you.

Personally, I'd rather challenge the current use of these images and get them completely removed from Wikipedia (but I won't) than to misuse them. And BTW, my motive in using them was not DECORATIVE, but rather to allow for visual comparisons without switching from article to article. That's a legitimate motive.

Thank you for your patience. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The only thing posted so far by anyone (including the bot) which might be considered even close to WP:ASPERSIONS is your comment above about high priests. It was pointed out that the bot removed the files because their use in the article was lacking the required rationale; this is and has always been a violation of policy. The other stuff was my assessment of the way the files were being used and an explanation why a I think a valid rationale can't be written for that image gallery. You don't have to agree with that assessment. You or someone else who disagrees with it could add missing rationales to each file's page and then re-add the files to the article. That would stop the bot, but someone could challenge the non-free uses of the files and their rationales bring them up for further discussion. Then, it would be up to you to establish a consensus in favor of their use in the article.

More generally, if you feel either this policy or any other Wikipedia policy or guideline is somehow contray to Pillar Three, you can discuss your concerns on their respective talk pages or at WP:VPP. I personally don't see how "Wikipedia being free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute" is somehow not being allowed by what the bot did or what has been posted above because Wikipedia is not and never has been a free-for-all where anything goes. It has had policies and guidelines since the beginning and these have been and are still being applied in some form daily by users all the time. Have you ever reverted another edit or removed content because it wasn't in compliance with some policy or guideline? Have you ever left a user talk page warning, edit summary or other message informing another editor that an edit they made was not necessary or not in accordance with some policy or guideline? Have you ever nominated, tagged or prodded a page for deletion because you felt it didn't meet some relevant policy? My guess is that your answer to some or all of those questions is likely "yes" if you've been editing for awhile which means you yourself have been applying (i.e. enforcing) relevant policies and guidelines as well in various situations when you deemed doing so to be necessary.

Lastly, did you read the very last sentence of "Pillar Three"? Did you click on "non-free media" link in that sentence? That's the same page the bot is linking to in the edit summaries it leaves when it removes files for this reason. Did you click on the links I added to my above post? Most of them also lead to the same "non-free media" page. So, if there's something about that page you don't understand or don't agree with, you can start a discussion about it at WT:NFCC if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)